alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News Release Farm Credit Administration

1501 Farm Credit Drive

McLean, VA 22102-5090

For Immediate Release 

NR 17-21 (11-09-17)

Contact: Mike Stokke or Christine Quinn, 

703-883-4056

Email: info-line@fca.gov

FCA Board Approves Request by Farm Credit Financial Partners (FPI) 

to Issue More Stock, Also Approves a Request to Purchase FPI Stock

McLEAN, Va., Nov. 9, 2017 — The Farm Credit Administration board today voted to 

approve a request from Farm Credit Financial Partners Inc. (FPI) to amend its articles of 

incorporation. FPI is a service corporation that provides back-office services to four Farm 

Credit System associations, which together own FPI. 

The amendment permits FPI to increase the number of shares of stock it issues. It 

allows the organization to issue up to 5 million shares each of voting preferred stock, 

nonvoting preferred stock, and nonvoting common stock. This will allow FPI, which is 

operated on a break-even basis, to increase its capital base and grow safely to meet 

additional demand for services.

In addition, the board approved a request by Farm Credit Illinois, ACA, to purchase $10 

million of preferred and common stock in FPI in order to join FPI’s ownership group. 

The board also voted to approve a request from Compeer Financial, ACA, to revolve 

allocated equities totaling $268,000 that are associated with 12 defaulted loans.

Notational Vote

Since the Oct. 12 FCA board meeting, one notational vote has occurred. Notational votes 

are actions taken by the FCA board between board meetings.

On Oct. 16, the board approved the Office of Examination’s FY 2018 Oversight and 

Examination Plan.

###

The Farm Credit Administration is the safety and soundness regulator of the Farm Credit System. The 

System consists of two government-sponsored enterprises — a nationwide network of cooperative 

banks and associations established in 1916, and a secondary market entity known as the Federal 

Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac) that was established in 1988. The System’s borrowerowned banks and associations provide credit to farmers, ranchers, residents of rural communities, 

agricultural and rural utility cooperatives, and other eligible and creditworthy borrowers. Farmer Mac 

provides a secondary market for agricultural real estate loans, rural housing mortgage loans, and 

certain rural utility loans. Members of the FCA board are Dallas P. Tonsager, board chairman and CEO, 

and Jeffery S. Hall. FCA news releases are available on the web at www.fca.gov.
STATE of Louisiana v. Emanuel RANDALL

NO. 2018-KH-0866

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.
Opinion issued April 11 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO. 01
- 12
- 00414
- CV

ESTHER J. DAMLARKAYA , Appellant
V. MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM , Appellee
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 999747



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Esther J. Damlarkaya has neither paid the required filing fee for this appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

— at the time an item is presented fo r filing

— whatever fees are required2 by statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 51.207 (West Supp. 2012), §

. 51.941(a) (West 2005), § 101.041 (West Supp. 2012) (listing fees i n court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P . app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). The filing fee was initially due on May
1 7 , 2012. On March 8, 2013, the Court notified appellant that she had not established indigence and that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless the filing fee was paid w ithin 10 days

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 (allowin g enforcement of rule); 42.3 (allowing i nvoluntary dismissal of appeal ). Appellant did not respond. Accordingly, w e dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CUR IAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
EX PARTE Michael Dewayne JACKSON

1170010 (CR-16-0407)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
James WILLIAMS v. Paul BOLOTOVSKY, James River Insurance Company, and XYZ Insurance Company

NO. 2019-CC-0213

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

*611Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Alphonso PITTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-50

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

Alphonso Pitts, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Connolly v. State*, 172 So.3d 893, 903-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (holding that "technical defects in a charging document are treated differently than the failure to allege an essential element of the crime. An indictment that wholly omits an essential element of a crime is a fundamental defect that may be raised at any time because the indictment fails to charge a crime when an essential element is omitted. Use or possession of a firearm, however, is not an essential element of second degree murder, but rather, it may serve to allow for a reclassification of the second degree murder from a first degree felony to a life felony or as an enhancement of the sentence imposed") (internal footnote and citation omitted). *See also**Galindez v. State*, 955 So.2d 517 (Fla. 2007) (holding that an *Apprendi*/ *Blakely*1 error is subject to a harmless error analysis); *Robinson v. State*, 215 So.3d 1262, 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

1

*See**Blakely v. Washington*, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) ; *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| By:    | /S/                Ken                Milken                                                                                                                                                                     |   |   |   |
|   | Ken                    MilkenPresident                    and Director(Chief                    Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer andPrincipal                    Executive                    Officer) |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Form 10-QSB of Pricester.com, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward C. Dillon,
Chief Executive 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 and belief:

         (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.


/s/ Edward C. Dillon
--------------------
Edward C. Dillon,
Chief Executive Officer
May 11, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DENIED; Opinion Filed June 5, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 13 - 00745 - CV No. 05 - 13 - 00746 - CV IN RE SENRICK WILKER SON, Relator On Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. W10 - 01183 - J, W10 - 01184 - J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Moseley In these original mandamus proceedings, re lator Senrick Wilkerson asks this Court to order the judge of the trial court to forward him copies of arrest reports and records and other documents related to the a b ove cases and two other cases. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See Simon v. Levario , 306 S.W.3d 318, 320

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (orig. proceeding); State of Tex. ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist. , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus.

130745F.P05 /Jim Moseley/ JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
Marcus Jamaal HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Beverly Himel RAFFERTY v. Bradley BENNETT, Baton Rouge Police Department, City of Baton Rouge

NO. 2019-CC-0447

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
January 25, 2017.

Case 3:17-cv-00078-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AHMED O. HABIB )

)

V. ) 3-05-CV-2416-P

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary, )

Department of Homeland Security, et al )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge William F. Sanderson, Jr., made findings, conclusions

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court

accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 27 day of March 2006. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02416-P Document 15 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 104
#### In re: Donald SHORT, Sr., Debtor, Appellant, v. Mary M. SHORT, Appellee.

No. 03-2337.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 11, 2004.

Decided May 17, 2004.

Mary E. Bower-Sheats, Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellant.

Charles F. Bennett, Apple *&*Apple, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Appellee.

Before NYGAARD, McKEE, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION*

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant is the debtor in possession in a Chapter 13 proceeding. He seeks to set aside the sale of realty owned by him and his wife as tenants by the entireties. The appellant’s unhappiness with the sale seemingly is caused by the bankruptcy judge’s refusal to issue rulings on the validity of the option used to sell the property or the applicability of a post-nuptial agreement. Apparently, these issues have some relationship to the appellant’s divorce proceedings in Florida.

No stay was secured before an appeal was taken to the District Court, which *847dismissed the case as moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m). Our explanation of the mootness status of unstayed sales orders is set out in *L.R.S.C. Co. v. Riekel Home Centers, Inc. (In re Riekel Home Centers, Inc.),*209 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2000) and *Krebs Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Valley Motors, Inc.,*141 F.3d 490 (3d Cir.1998). In *Krebs,*we said, “there are two prerequisites for section 363(m) ‘statutory1 mootness: (1) the underlying sale or lease was not stayed pending the appeal, and (2) the court, if reversing or modifying the authorization to sell or lease, would be affecting the validity of such a sale or lease.” *Id.*at 499.

The case before us satisfies both requirements and accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
# C_2018301EN.01000501.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/5

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — NN A/S v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-28/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Corporation tax - National tax legislation making the transfer of the losses sustained by a permanent establishment, situated on national territory, of a company established in another Member State, to a resident company belonging to the same group, subject to a condition as to the impossibility of using such losses for the purpose of a foreign tax))

(2018/C 301/06)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: NN A/S

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the resident companies in a group are permitted to deduct, from their group profits, the losses sustained by a resident permanent establishment of a non-resident subsidiary of that group only in the case where the rules applicable in the Member State in which that subsidiary has its registered office do not permit those losses to be deducted from the latter’s profits, when the application of that legislation is combined with that of a convention preventing double taxation allowing, in the latter Member State, the deduction from the income tax payable by the subsidiary of a sum corresponding to the income tax paid, in the Member State on the territory of which that permanent establishment is situated, in respect of the latter’s activity. However, Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such legislation in the case where the effect of its application is to deprive that group of any effective possibility of deducting those losses from the group’s overall profits, where it is not possible to set off those losses against that subsidiary’s profits in the Member State on the territory of which that subsidiary is established, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.

---
1

The Court notes that since the magistrate judge’s report, the Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has expressly held that the holding in United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) is a procedural rule that does not fall

into either of the two exceptions for non-retroactivity set out in Teague v.

Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), with the resulting holding that Booker is not

retroactive on collateral review. See United States v. Gentry, No.04-11221, 2005

WL 3317891 at **2-6 (5th Cir. December 8, 2005).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

RON DERECK BURNETT, §

Petitioner, §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-397-Y

 §

COLE JETER, Warden, §

FCI-Fort Worth, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING 

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Ron Dereck Burnett under

28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

November 28, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on December 21, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Burnett’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion to dismiss should be

granted, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.1

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00397-Y Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 92
2

Respondent Jeter’s September 20, 2005, motion to dismiss

[docket no. 7] is GRANTED.

Ron Dereck Burnett’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

SIGNED January 5, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00397-Y Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 93
3

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00397-Y Document 13 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 94
EXHIBIT
32.1
  The
following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Royal Financial, Inc. on the basis of such
officers’ knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.
  CERTIFICATION
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Financial, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2008 (the “Report”), the
under-signed hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   Date:  November
      14, 2008
                            
                            /s/ Leonard SzwajkowskiLeonard SzwajkowskiChief
      Executive Officer and President
   /s/ Jodi A. OjedaJodi A. OjedaChief Financial
      Officer
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission upon request.  This certification accompanies
the Report and shall not be treated as having been filed as part of this
Report.
Jonathan WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-268

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2019

Jonathan Wright, Appellant, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Jonathan Wright appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. While we find no error in most of the trial court's disposition, we agree with Mr. Wright that the court's record attachments do not refute his claim of entitlement to additional jail credit.

In 1985, Jonathan Wright was sentenced for two counts of attempted second-degree murder, four counts of armed robbery, and three counts of attempted armed robbery. In 2007, he was re-sentenced following this court's decision in *Wright v. State* , 941 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

In the instant motion, Mr. Wright contended that while awaiting re-sentencing he was held in Duval County Jail from May 29, 2007 until November 22, 2007. He claimed that he was entitled to jail credit for this time. The trial court denied relief, finding that the motion was legally insufficient, and that Mr. Wright was not entitled to the credit on the merits.

We disagree with the court's conclusion that the motion was legally insufficient. Criminal defendants are entitled to credit for time spent in county jail awaiting re-sentencing. *Middleton v. State* , 213 So.3d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). And Mr. Wright's motion alleged everything that was required pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. The record attachments do not conclusively refute his jail credit claim. *See**McIntosh v. State* , 146 So.3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (" Rule 3.801(e) ... requires the circuit court to attach to its order denying a motion seeking additional jail credit records that conclusively refute the motion.").

On remand, the court should grant relief, unless the jail and/or prison records show that Mr. Wright received the credit due for the time he spent in jail from May 29, 2007 until November 22, 2007. If the court denies relief, it must include record attachments showing that the defendant is not entitled to relief for this period of time.

*534Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Roberts and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
E.R., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2181

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kerry ESSER, Jr., Appellant, v. Jessica L. ESSER, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2454

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.