alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2111

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Michael Kenneth Williams, also * known as Squirrel, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 5, 1996 Filed: March 8, 1996

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Williams pleaded guilty to one coun t of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and one count of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Williams to 13 7 1 months imprisonment a nd 5 years supervised release on the methamphetamine count and to 120 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release on the firearms count, the s entences to run concurrently. On appeal, Williams's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising as issues (1) whether law enforcement officials engaged in sentencing entrapment by delaying revocation of Williams' s probation so he could engage in additional drug buys, and (2) whethe r evidence of tape recorded conversations acquired by

### -2-

a body recorder worn by an undercover law enforcement official should be suppressed, because of the government's failure to obtain prio r authorization pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2515 et seq.

We co nclude Williams's claim that undercover law enforcemen t of ficials illegally recorded conversations with him is meritless, a s mon itoring of a conversation by a person acting under color of law i s permitted when that person consents. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c); United States v. Jones , 801 F.2d 304, 315 (1986).

Williams's sentencing entrapment claim may be more aptl y characterized as a sentencing manipulation claim. Compare United States
v. Barth , 990 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir. 1993) (sentencing entrapment) with Unite d States v. Shephard , 4 F.3d 647, 649 (8th Cir. 1993) (sentencin g manipulat ion), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 1322 (1994). No matter ho w characterized, the claim fails. The record indicates that, in thi s proceeding, the amount of drugs counted as relev ant for sentencing did not includ e any drugs purchased after the delay in Williams's probatio n revocation.

We d o not consider Williams's ineffective-assistance claim, raise d for the first time on appeal in one of his two s upplemental pro se briefs, as that claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding where the record can be appropriately developed. See United States v. Kenyon , 7 F.3 d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 1993).

In acc ordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we hav e reviewed the record, and have found no nonfrivolous issues for review.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Christopher G. Kenber, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of hi/fn, inc.

|               |  |                                                                                 
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|August 1, 2003 |  | By: /s/ CHRISTOPHER G. KENBER                                                   
|               |  |                                                                                 
|               |  | Name: Christopher G. Kenber
Title: Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued February 14, 2008 Decided May 6, 2008 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3940 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. SCOTT FOOR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division No. IP06-CR-0041-01 John Daniel Tinder, Judge

O R D E R Scott Foor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Foor to 110 months in custody, three years of supervised release, a $500 fine and a $100 special assessment. Foor’s only claim in this appeal is that the district court judge erred in failing to establish a specific schedule for making fine payments during Foor’s term of imprisonment. Due to the limited nature of his appeal, we need not recite the details of his crime and plea agreement other than to note that by the terms of his plea agreement Foor may challenge this portion of his sentence. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 06-3940 2
Foor did not specifically object to the distri ct court’s fine order at sentencing, so we review the district court’s actions for plain error only. U.S. v. Kelly, 519 F.3d 355, 362, n.1 (7th Cir. 2008). That is, in order to reverse the order of the district court, there must have been (1) an error, (2) it must have been plain and (3) it must have affected Foor’s substantial rights. U.S. v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The issue raised in this case can be resolved completely by reference to our recently released opinion in U.S. v. Ellis , No. 05-4677, 2008 WL 879861 (7th Cir. Apr. 3, 2008). Ellis instructs that where a court has ordered a fine payment due immediately, it is not error for the district court to fail to set a schedule for making fine payments while a defendant is incarcerated. Id. at *3. Nor must a court set a schedule of payments for any unpaid amount remaining during the period of supervised release. Id. The district court’s order in this matter is AFFIRMED.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00585- CR
Leovardo Cantos, Appellan t

v. State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 277 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 13- 2081 -K 277, H ONO RAB LE STACEY MATTH EWS, JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appea l was orig in ally due Fe bruar y 13, 2015. On counsel’s motions, the time for filing was extended to May 26, 2015. Appellant’s counsel has now filed a third motion, reque sting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’ s brief to J uly 10, 2015. We g rant the motion for ex tension of time and orde r appe llant to file a brief no later than J uly 10, 2015. No further extension of time will be g rante d and failure to comply with this order will result i n the refer

ral of this case to the t rial court for a hear ing under Rul e 38.8(b) of t he Tex as R ules o f Appellate Proc edure
.

I t is ordere d on J une 12, 2015.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield Do Not Publish
No. 10-270.

#### Skidmore Energy, Inc., Petitioner v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A., et al.

562 U.S. 963, 131 S. Ct. 478,

178 L. Ed. 2d 291,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7931.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 337 Fed. Appx. 706.
Exhibit 32.  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 report of Questar Gas Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Ronald W. Jibson, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Doleshek, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.  QUESTAR GAS COMPANY    August 7, 2009 /s/Ronald W. Jibson Ronald W. Jibson President & Chief Executive Officer    August 7, 2009 /s/Richard J. Doleshek Richard J. Doleshek Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES
EDISON BROTHERS STORES, INC.
  AND SUBSIDIARIES

FEBRUARY 1, 1997

The following is a grouping of subsidiary corporations by segment.  All of the
outstanding capital stock of the subsidiaries is owned, directly or indirectly,
by the Company.  All of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated
financial statements filed herein.  

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
                                                            No. of
               Principal                 State of           subsidiary
Segment        business names            incorporation      corporations

<S>           <C>                        <C>                   <C> 
Apparel       JW/Jeans West, Oaktree     Maryland              1
              J. Riggings, CODA          Missouri              3
              REPP Ltd Big & Tall,       California            1
              5-7-9 Shops, Phoenix       Delaware              1

Footwear      Bakers/Leeds, Precis       Various               46
              Wild Pair             

Other         Entertainment and Corporate
              Related Functions         Various                13

              Foreign subsidiaries      Canada                 2
              involved in retail        Mexico                 3
              operations or acquisition Taiwan                 1
              of merchandise for        Hong Kong              1
              Apparel and Footwear      Philippines            1
              segments
                                                               73
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Diagnostic/Retrieval Systems, Inc. d.b.a. DRS Technologies, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 2-87303, No. 2-99986, and No. 333-14487) on Form S-8 and (No. 2-97784, No.
33-33125, No. 33-42886, No. 33-64641, and No. 333-04929) on Form S-3 of
Diagnostic/Retrieval Systems, Inc. of our reports dated May 9, 1997, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Diagnostic/Retrieval Systems, Inc. and
subsidiaries d.b.a. DRS Technologies, Inc. as of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows and related consolidated financial statement schedule for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 1997, which reports appear or are
incorporated by reference in the March 31, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Diagnostic/Retrieval Systems, Inc. d.b.a. DRS Technologies, Inc.


                                         KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
June 27, 1997
No. 89-624 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF THE CUSTODY OF A.O., M.O., and A.O., Minor Children, PAMELA PIERRE, Petitioner and Respondent,

DAVID L. OSBORN, Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

### In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Stuart R. Whitehair, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: James D. McKenna, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 29, 1990 Decided: April 12, 1990Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. David L. Osborn appeals from an order of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody JurisdictionAct. Sections 40-7-101, et seq. On reviewing the record, the Court concludesthat theDistrict Court'sorder is not an appealable order, and thereforethisappeal should be dismissed. Rule 1(b)

### , M.R.App.P., enumerates the specific matters which can be appealed from District Court. The orderappealed from in thiscasemerely denied amotion todismiss. An order denying a motion to dismiss is not included within the appealable orders specified in Rule 1, M.R.App.P. There is therefore no support for this appeal;accordingly it is dismissed. Let the remittitur issue forthwith. Pursuant to Section 

### I,Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shallbe published by its filing asapublic document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the West Publishing Company.

Chief Justice 

# fy
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

SA Ruxandra Popescu 5/24/10 Byemail

RAA Dave Lotterer 5/24/10 Byemail

TCCA Helen Tsai 5/24/10 Byemail
#### People v Houghtaling

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1591 (Livingston)

denied 3/13/17 (Rivera, J.)
#### Paul G. Mederos, Respondent, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 905]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered January 18, 2017, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff did not serve a timely notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court correctly found that the CPLR 208 toll did not terminate upon the appointment of the article 81 guardian (see *Henry v City of New York,*94 NY2d 275 [1999]; *Giannicos v Bellevue Hosp. Med. Ctr.,*42 AD3d 379 [1st Dept 2007]; *Costello v North Shore Univ. Hosp. Ctr. for Extended Care & Rehabilitation,*273 AD2d 190 [2d Dept 2000]). The 90-day period to serve the notice of claim was not extended by the CPLR 208 toll (see *Yessenia D. v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*139 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2016]). However the 90-day period was tolled in this case by the continuous treatment doctrine.

Concur — Renwick, J.P., Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 4.17
 CORGI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
 AMENDMENT TO WARRANTS, COMMITMENT TO ISSUE REPLACEMENT
WARRANTS, AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT AND
WAIVER
 Amendment Company Holder Holders Warrant Warrants Purchase Agreement Note Purchase Agreement Registration Rights
Agreement
  WHEREAS,
 Warrant Shares Warrant Price
 SEC
 Majority Holders




---



##### 



NOW, THEREFORE
 AGREEMENT
 Warrant Price/Replacement Warrants.
   provided however Early Exercised Warrants provided further Replacement Warrants
 Replacement Warrants. mutatis mutandis
 2




---



##### 



Effect of Amendment on Warrants/Further Consent. provided
 Filing of Prospectus Supplement/Amendment of Registration Rights Agreement to include
Replacement Warrants and Waivers.
     3




---



##### 



Exhibit C
 Counterparts.
 4




---



##### 



WITNESS WHEREOF
 COMPANY:CORGI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
a Hong Kong corporationBy:Name:
    
    Michael J. CooksonTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive OfficerWARRANT HOLDERS:By:Name:Title:
 5
# C_2015228EN.01002601.xml

| 13.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/26

---

Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission

(Case T-671/13) (1)

1

(2015/C 228/35)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
#### People v Guzman

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 450 (NY)

denied 3/27/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
# C_2015389EN.01003801.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — The Tea Board v OHIM — Delta Lingerie (Darjeeling collection de lingerie)

(Case T-625/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark Darjeeling collection de lingerie - Earlier Community collective word and figurative marks DARJEELING - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 389/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Tea Board (Calcutta, India) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Delta Lingerie (Cachan, France) (represented by: G. Marchais and P. Martini-Berthon, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1502/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Tea Board and Delta Lingerie.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1502/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 September 2013 (Case R 1502/2012-2) as regards the goods in Class 25 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘[r]etailing of women’s underwear and lingerie, perfumes, toilet water and cosmetic lotions, household and bath linen’ services in Class 35 of that agreement covered by the mark applied for;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**     The following certification accompanies Dynamics ResearchCorporation’s Annual Report onForm 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 and is not filed as providedin Item 601(b)(32)(ii) ofRegulation S-K ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission.Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002     In connection with the Annual Report onForm 10-K ofDynamics Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the“Company”), for the year ended December 31, 2005as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the ChiefExecutive Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:          (1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to    Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the    requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and           (2) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     By      /s/ James P. Regan         James P. Regan  *President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* Date: March 14, 2006
# C_2014339EN.01001901.xml

| 29.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/19

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

(Case T-718/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 339/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2013 (Case R 1812/2012-2) concerning cancellation proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its costs, including those incurred by the defendant and the other party to the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its costs, including those incurred by the defendant and the other party to the proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00346-CV

William Fat-Anthony

v.

La Fe Group Family Limited Partnership

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CL-22-2106-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 15, 2022
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 21, 2015

NO. 03-13-00576-CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and 

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellants

v.

Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court July 17, 2013, and the amended 

judgments signed by the trial court August 6, 2013, and August 9, 2013. The parties have filed a 

motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion 

should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. Each party 

shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and the court below.