alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GIFFORD LUMBER CO., INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Darin S. JOHNSON, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106961

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: June 28, 2019

Seth A. Pegram, 101 E. Columbia Street, 2nd Floor, Farmington, MO 63640, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Clinton B. Roberts, 16 W. Columbia Street, P.O. Box 430, Farmington, MO 63640, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Robin Ransom, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Darin S. Johnson (Appellant) appeals the motion court's judgment granting Gifford *880Lumber Co., Inc.'s (Respondent) claim against him for money owed on an unpaid account. We have reviewed Appellant's brief1 and the record on appeal and we conclude the motion court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

Respondent did not file a brief.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133434 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: 133434 

 COA: 264708 

Kalamazoo CC: 05-000299-FH 

DAVID QUINTRELL GIVHAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tyrone VALENTINE, Appellant.

No. ED 106729

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: April 16, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied September 3, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Tyrone Valentine, Pro Se, #23006-044, Ste. Genevieve County Jail, #5 Basler Drive, Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

*230Tyrone Valentine appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO D. WASHINGTON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30255

D.C. No. 3:15

- cr

- 00104

- SLG

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Antonio D. Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Washington contends that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 12 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30255

the severity of his medical issues and the conditions at his prison, as well as by

concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against relief.

T he distric t court concluded that

, despite Washington’s commendabl e efforts at

rehabilitation, relief was unwarranted in light of the § 3553(a) factors, including

Washington’s extensive and violent criminal history and the fact that Washington

had served less than half of his sentence

. This was not an abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Keller

, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of

review) ; United States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district

court abuses its discr etion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not

supported by the record)

. Accordingly , w e do not reach Washington’s argument

that the district court erred in its analysis of whether he had shown extraordinary

and compelling reasons for relief. See Keller

, 2 F.4th at 1284 (a district court may

deny compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors alone )

.

To the extent Washington seeks to introduce new evidence regarding his

medical conditions, we do not consider that evidence becau se it was not presented

to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10392 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DARNELL RANDOLPH COLLIER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:18

- CR

- 58

- 1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Darnell Randolph Collier has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 2 29 (5th Cir. 2011). Collier h a s 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

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 16, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10392 Document: 00515237459 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2019No. 19

- 10392

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-10392 Document: 00515237459 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2019
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00094-CV

Woodrow Wilson Miller Jr., et al.

v.

Jackson County, et al.

On Appeal from the

135th District Court of Jackson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. TAX8563

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be REVERSED and the 

cause REMANDED to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. No 

costs are assessed as appellees are exempt from payment.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 9, 2023
Request for Information GVG Engineering (FAA-2015-3292) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Gladov: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3292). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This 

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your 

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by November 3, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

 

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. 

FAA Office of Rulemaking 

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:23 AM 

To: GGLADOV@GMAIL.COM
Exhibit 34.2 

KPMG LLP 

303 East Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601-5212 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Citibank, N.A.: 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) and certain privately issued (i.e., for whichtransaction-level reporting is required pursuant to contractual obligation) automobile loan or lease-backed securities, equipment loan-backed securities and student loan-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the Companyprovides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), whichthe Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities thatcomprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred eitherprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2011 is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects. 

(Signed) KPMG LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 28, 2012
Seventh Amendment of Contract



 Seventh Amendment of Contract 
 This Seventh Amendment (the Seventh Amendment) is made and entered into on December 18, 2007, by and between the State of Louisiana, through the
Division of Administration, Office of Community Development (hereinafter referred to as “OCD”) and ICF Emergency Management Services, LLC (hereinafter referred to either as “ICF” or “Contractor”). Capitalized terms used
in the amendment but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the hereinafter described Contract. 
 WHEREAS, OCD and
Contractor have heretofore executed and entered into that certain Contract with an effective date of June 12, 2006 (the “Contract”) in which ICF agreed to serve as Louisiana’s Road Home Manager and otherwise obligated itself to
complete the Project; which Contract was amended by the First Amendment dated July 24, 2006, by the Second Amendment dated September 28, 2006, by the Third Amendment dated October 18, 2006, by the Fourth Amendment dated March 15,
2007, by the Fifth Amendment dated June 25, 2007, and by the Sixth Amendment dated November 6, 2007. 
 Whereas, the Contract
funding was based on the assumption that there would be 100,000 recipients of grants under the Homeowner Assistance Program and the current estimate is that there will be almost 160,000 such recipients; 
 Now therefore, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, the State and Contractor agree as follows: 
 Amend section 3.1 of the Contract as follows: 
 The first
paragraph of Section 3.1, with the heading, “Maximum Contract Price for all Phases” is hereby amended to read as follows: 
 MAXIMUM CONTRACT PRICE FOR ALL PHASES 
 The maximum compensation to Contractor under the Contract is NINE HUNDRED TWELVE
MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($912,000,000) for all services and costs. The maximum compensation amount includes all services and costs whatsoever. 
 All remaining paragraphs of Section 3.1, and all other portions of the Contract, remain unchanged by this amendment. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Seventh Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	State of Louisiana, Division of Administration
		
	By	 	    /s/ Jerry Luke Leblanc
		 	    Jerry Luke Leblanc
		 	    Commissioner of Administration
		
	Date:	 	    December 7, 2007


			
	
	ICF Emergency Management Services, LLC
		
	By	 	    /s/ Kenneth B. Kolsky
	Typed Name	 	    Kenneth B. Kolsky
	Title	 	    Executive Vice President
CHARLESTON.

#### Womeldorff & Thomas Company *v.*Mai L. Moore

(No. 6465)

Submitted March 13, 1930.

Decided April 1, 1930.

*722*Somerville & Somerville,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. G. Musgrave*and *B. H. Blagg,*for plaintiff in error.

Hatcher, Judge:

In the absence of the defendant, the plaintiff obtained a •judgment against her, at the January Term 1928 of the circuit court of Mason County. Later, at the same term, the defendant moved the court to set aside the judgment, and this order was entered: “This day came the defendant, Mai L. Moore and moved the court to set aside the judgment entered against her at a former day of the present term of the court, which motion the court doth take time to consider, and the further hearing upon said motion is continued until the next term of court. ’ ’

At the next term (the May Term) the court refused to hear 'the motion, entering the following order: “This day came the defendant, Mai L. Moore, and moved action on her motion to set aside a judgment entered against her at the January Term of the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia, which motion was originally made at the January term, and which motion the court took time to consider, and it appearing to the court that the January Term of said court passed without said motion having been acted upon, the court is of opinion to and doth hereby refuse to consider the motion of the said Mai L. Moore as renewed at this term of court.”

It is the law generally that a motion to vacate a judgment made at the term when it is rendered, suspends the judgment until the motion is disposed of. If the hearing on the motion is continued to a subsequent term, the jurisdiction of the court over the proceedings is likewise continued. 15 Standard Ency. Pro. 190; 34 C. J., p. 212, etc. This principle was conceded in *Green*v. *R. R. Co.,*11 W. Va. 685, was followed in *Bank*v. *Johnston,*41 W. Va. 550, and was definitely pronounced in *Cole*v. *State,*73 W. Va. 410. (See authorities cited on page 413, except the citation should be to *15*Ency. of Pl. & Pr., p. 208.)

The hearing in this case was expressly continued to the May Term. That hearing was then denied and the defendant *723precluded from showing cause (if sbe could) in support of ber motion. Sbe is entitled to an opportunity to show cause and to have ber motion disposed of. The order entered at the May Term will accordingly be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings on the motion.

*Order set aside; case remmded.*
----

Corrigendum to Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme (Euratom) for research and training in the nuclear energy field

(Official Journal of the European Union C 139 of 8 June 2005)

(2005/C 153/13)

In the Annex on page 40, point 8, in the third column of the table, alongside the topic ‘RAD PROT-2005/6-3.3.1.1-2’:

for:

‘IP’

read:

‘STREP’.

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 2632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-648]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,981]


Prime Tanning Company, Incorporated, Berwick, ME; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 19, 2008, the Department of Labor 
(Department) received a request for administrative reconsideration of 
the Department's Notice of negative determination regarding workers' 
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on 
November 25, 2008. The Department's Notice of determination was 
published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75138). 
Workers at the subject firm produce whole- and half-side leather sides, 
and are not separately identifiable by product line.
    The negative determination was based on the Department's findings 
that the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country and 
that neither the subject firm nor its major declining customers 
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those 
produced by the subject firm.
    In the request for reconsideration, a company official alleged that 
``many shoe manufacturers, including those in our backyard, transferred 
their purchasing of tanned leather to those facilities in Asia'' and 
that ``the leather industry in the United States has all but 
disappeared.''
    A careful review of previously-submitted material shows that, 
during the relevant period, the subject firm may have supplied 
component parts for articles produced by a firm with a currently TAA 
certified worker group.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration, and has determined that the Department will conduct 
further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility 
requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of January 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-648 Filed 1-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
SURINA CHRISTINE SEAL

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0 854

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed July 8, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Terry D. Terrell , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for App ellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof East Kansas Agri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael Goblirsch, General Manager of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|   |   /s/ Michael Goblirsch |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | General Manager                   |
|   | Dated: November 14, 2005     |

 

----
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 
 
 In
connection with this Annual Report of Chardan
Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kerry
Propper, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 1.
              Such
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30,
      2009, 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 period ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of Chardan
      Acquisition Corp.
 
 By: /s/Kerry
Propper Kerry
Propper
 President
and Director
 
 January
19, 2010
HPMSVTypeID

yearIDHPMSBaseYearVMTbaseYearOffNetVMT 10 2010 9765076.445 0 20 2010 1451090360 0 30 2010 285140232.2 0 40 2010 9765076.445 0 50 2010 60543473.96 0 60 2010 136711070.2 0