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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For thequarterly period ended March 31, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-14483

 

 

DavidsonDiversified Real Estate II, L.P.

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55Beattie Place, P.O. Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code)

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  

[X] Yes  [ ]No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
Garrett MUELLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0955

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
Jeffrey S. MORRILL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D16-5854

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0267

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WALLIS DEAN SINZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 25, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 15 2020

04/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0267
Maria V. ROQUE, Appellant, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50573

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

FERNANDO URIBE,

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-366-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Uribe appeals the concurrent within-guidelines sentences of 36

months imposed following his convictions for attempted illegal reentry and

falsely claiming United States citizenship. As a threshold matter, Uribe argues

that a presumption of reasonableness should not apply to his within-guidelines

sentences on appellate review because the applicable guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2,

is not the result of empirical evidence or study. As Uribe acknowledges, this

argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 3, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-50573 Document: 00512260483 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2013
No. 12-50573

Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir.

2009).

Uribe also argues that his within-guidelines sentences were greater than

necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and thus were

unreasonable, in part, because the illegal reentry guideline doubled-counted one

of his prior convictions in determining his offense level and criminal history. We

have rejected the argument that a sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is

greater than necessary to meet § 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double

counting inherent in that Guideline. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31.

Finally, Uribe argues that his guidelines ranges failed to reflect his

personal history and circumstances, the benign nature of his illegal reentry

offense, and the reasons he committed that offense. He further contends that

the district court incorrectly weighed these factors. His arguments are

unavailing. The district court, which was “in a superior position to find facts and

judge their import under § 3553(a),” considered and rejected Uribe’s arguments

for sentences below his advisory guidelines ranges. United States v.

Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). After consideration of

Uribe’s arguments, the court expressly gave more weight to other § 3553(a)

factors, including Uribe’s criminal history and history of violence, and

determined that sentences within the ranges were appropriate. Uribe has not

rebutted the presumption of reasonableness attaching to his within-guidelines

sentences on appellate review. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d

554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing

decision. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Accordingly, the

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-50573 Document: 00512260483 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2013
Shaun BATTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-763

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 69 (Monday, April 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 16878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8331]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Initial Review 
Group, (NCIPC, IRG)

    Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on 
March 30, 2009, Volume 74, Number 59, Page 14134. The times and place 
for the aforementioned meeting have been changed to the following:

    Times and Dates:
    10 a.m.-10:30 a.m., April 22, 2009 (Open).
    10:30 a.m.-5 p.m., April 22, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference, toll free: (888)793-2154, Participant 
Passcode: 4424802.
    Contact Person for More Information: Jane Suen, Dr. P.H., M.S., 
NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., Mailstop F-62, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30341, Telephone: (770) 488-4281.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: April 3, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-8331 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Biolog 10-K




EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Biolog Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Garry McHenry, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, 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 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.




Date: February 4, 2010

/s/ Garry McHenryName: Garry McHenry
Title: Secretary
Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
STATE of Louisiana v. Jamie LYONS

NO. 2018-KK-0510

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 2018

Denied.
Daryl HOBBS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2017

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 January 31, 2014

t0127

Order 

Clerk

January 31, 2014

148040

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148040

COA: 313874

Dickinson CC: 10-004513-FC

RONNEE LEE PIETRANTONIO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2013 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,605]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of Weyerhaeuser Level, Grayling, Michigan.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of March 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-8302 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Mark GAVER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Donna R. GAVER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 Certification
I, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containingdistribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year covered bythis annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2004-37; 1.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided tothe depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, forinclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and theannual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in thereports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;and 4.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the reportprovided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with theUniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth inthe pooling and servicing, or similar agreements, that is included in these reports.
In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.
Date: March 29, 2005   By: /s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName: Ellen Z. LamaleTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
Roosevelt MONDESIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2219

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 9, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION(Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, Steven D. Foster, the Chief Financial Officer of Parallel PetroleumCorporation (“Parallel”), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Parallel forthe quarter ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the periodic reporting requirements of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in that Form 10-Q Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofParallel.Dated: August 8, 2006      /s/ Steven D. Foster   Steven D. Foster,   Chief Financial Officer        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParallel Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Parallel Petroleum Corporation and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|   | “Loan      Interest Rate” means 2% per annum above the Prime Rate (as hereinafter      defined), compounded semi-annually and based on a 360 day      year. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | “Maturity      Date” means the date upon which Payee demands payment of all principal and      accrued interest hereunder. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | “Maximum      Rate” means the maximum rate of non-usurious interest permitted by      applicable law and calculated after taking into account any and all      relevant fees, payments, and other charges in respect of this Note which      are deemed to be interest under applicable law; provided      however, in no event shall the Maximum Rate exceed 18% per      annum. |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | "Prime      Rate" means the annual lending rate of interest announced from time to      time by J.P. Morgan Chase and Co., New York, New York, as its prime      rate. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Sergio SANCHEZ-OCHOA, a/k/a Rodolfo Trevizo, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 03-10394.

D.C. No. CR-03-00108-FJM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 11, 2004.*

Decided May 13, 2004.

Mary Beth Phillips, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barbara L. Spencer, Spencer, Hubbarg & Glitsos PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILER,** and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Because Sanchez-Ochoa’s waiver of his right to appeal was voluntarily, knowingly, and properly entered, it did not violate his right to due process. *See, e.g., United States v. Navarro-Botello,*912 F.2d 318, 321-22 (9th Cir.1990). Similarly, because *145the government fully complied with its obligations under the terms of the agreement and because the sentencing court faithfully applied the sentencing guidelines, Sanchez-Ochoa received precisely what he bargained for in his plea agreement. *United States v. Smith,*991 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1993); *United States v. Lewis,*979 F.2d 1372, 1375 (9th Cir.1992). Therefore, Sanchez-Ochoa validly waived his statutory right of appeal and “may not now ignore his part of the bargain.” *Navarro-Botello,*912 F.2d at 322.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|   | (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 results of operations of Winland. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          | Winland Electronics, Inc. |                     |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|
|                          |                      |                     |   |
| Date:  November 12, 2010 | By:                       | /s/ Glenn A. Kermes |   |
|                          |                      | Glenn A. Kermes          |   |
|                          |                      | Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                          |                      |                     |   |
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 64 (Monday, April 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 15518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7700]

[[Page 15518]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNML00000 L19200000.ET0000; NMNM 117830]

Correction to Public Land Order No. 7724; Withdrawal of Public 
Land for Customs and Border Protection; New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Correction to Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a correction to the Public Land Order No. 
7724 published in the Federal Register [74 FR No. 1, page 118] on 
Friday, January 2, 2009, under the ADDRESSES.

ADDRESSES: The heading, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 
Customs and Border Protection should read: the U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, 3300 J Street, 
Lordsburg, New Mexico 88045.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Allen, at the Bureau of Land 
Management, Las Cruces District Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las 
Cruces, New Mexico or at (575) 525-4454.

Bill Childress,
District Manager, Las Cruces.
 [FR Doc. E9-7700 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VC-P
```
Lazaro BONARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1715

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony PARKS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D14-844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



|                                      |  |                                           
|------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                                  |  | Jurisdiction of Organization/Incorporation
|MHI Hospitality, L.P.                 |  | Delaware                                  
|MHI Hospitality TRS, LLC              |  | Delaware                                  
|MHI Hospitality TRS Holding, Inc.     |  | Maryland                                  
|MHI GP LLC                            |  | Delaware                                  
|Laurel Hotel Associates LLC           |  | Maryland                                  
|MHI Laurel West LLC                   |  | Maryland                                  
|Philadelphia Hotel Associates LP      |  | Pennsylvania                              
|Brownestone Partners, LLC             |  | Virginia                                  
|Capitol Hotel Associates L.P., L.L.P. |  | Virginia                                  
|Savannah Hotel Associates LLC         |  | Virginia                                  
|MHI Jacksonville LLC                  |  | Delaware                                  
|MHI Hollywood LLC                     |  | Delaware                                  
|Louisville Hotel Associates, LLC      |  | Delaware                                  
|MHI Hotel Investments Holdings, LLC   |  | Delaware                                  
|MHI Hospitality TRS II, LLC           |  | Delaware                                  
|Tampa Hotel Associates, LLC           |  | Delaware
J.L.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph SEEBER, Superintendent, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3188

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.