alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Craig Thomas PRIDAY, Appellant.

No. 07-1979.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 13, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 12, 2009.

*344Paul W. Hahn, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Appellee.

Craig Thomas Priday, Jackson, MO, pro se.

Stephen C. Wilson, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Appellant.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Craig Thomas Priday pled guilty to possessing firearms after one prior conviction for tampering' with a motor vehicle by operation, *see*Mo.Rev.Stat. § 569.080.1(2), and two previous convictions for assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After determining that Priday was subject to an enhanced sentence under section 924(e)(1) as an armed career criminal, because he had three prior convictions for violent felonies, *see*U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.4(a), the district court sentenced him to 180 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Priday argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment and acted contrary to *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), when it concluded that his conviction for tampering with a motor vehicle was a violent felony.

We recently held the Missouri crime of tampering does not qualify as a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(a)(2), *United States v. Williams,*537 F.3d 969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2008), a term we recognize as synonymous with the term “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, *see United States v. Johnson,*417 F.3d 990, 996 (8th Cir.2005) (“The statutory definition of ‘violent felony’ is viewed as interchangeable with the guidelines definition of ‘crime of violence.’ ”).

Based on the holding in *Williams,*we reverse the sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Jersey Mining
Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Fred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer and Director of New
Jersey Mining Company, 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;
  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 12, 2007

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCH Fred W. Brackebusch,
President, Treasurer & Director

---
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H in Post-Effective Amendment No. 36
to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-27783) pertaining to
Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 39.

    


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
#### Anne Todd *v.*Edward A. Jazlowiecki

*Stephen R. Corbiel,*in support of the petition.

Decided January 2, 1990

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 805, is denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as AdoptedPursuant to**

 

**Section 906of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joel Boyarski, the PrincipalFinancial and Accounting Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2005, which this certification accompanies,fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and informationcontained in the September 30, 2005 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofWorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to WorldGateand will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated: January 23, 2006 |   | /s/  JOEL BOYARSKI                     |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |   | Joel  Boyarski                              |
|                    |   | Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer |

 

----
[No. 9350.

*En Banc.*

July 27, 1912.]

#### Chicago, Milwaukee & Puget Sound Railway Company, *Appellant,*v. Frank H. Thayer *et al., Respondents.**1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gay, J., entered December 22, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury awarding damages in condemnation proceedings.

Affirmed.

*E. M. Dudley, H. EL. Field,*and *Charles 8. Gleason,*for appellant.

*Jay G. Allen,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 124 Pac. 1126.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

On appellant’s petition a rehearing *en banc*has been granted in this action. After such rehearing, the majority of this court conclude that the result heretofore reached, and the judgment ordered by this court in its former opinion, 65 Wash. 402, 118 Pac. 318, should be sustained.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the superior court be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-114522) and related Prospectus of HewittAssociates, Inc. for the registration of shares of its Class A Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91274) pertaining to the Global Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan and Registration Statement (Form S-3No. 333-119576) and related Prospectus for the registration of $110,000,000 of 2.50% of Convertible Senior Notes due October 1, 2010 of our reports dated November 17, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofHewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, Hewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofHewitt Associates, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005. 

 

 

Chicago, Illinois 

November 17, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14781]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than July 28, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant 
Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
    1. The Ronald G. Chamberlin Irrevocable Trust, Nathan A. Wurm and 
Eric D. Wurm, as co-trustees, The Irrevocable Gifting Trust FBO Nathan 
A. Wurm, Nathan A. Wurm, as trustee, and The Irrevocable Gifting Trust 
FBO Eric D. Wurm, Eric D. Wurm, as trustee, all of Caledonia, 
Minnesota; to join the Wurm Family Control Group, a group acting in 
concert, to retain voting shares of Eitzen Independents, Inc., Eitzen, 
Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of ESB Bank, 
Caledonia, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 7, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-14781 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 535 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within 

Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2011 

Mr. ISAKSON (for himself and Mr. CHAMBLISS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain 

lands within Fort Pulaski National Monument, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Pulaski National 

5 Monument Lease Authorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (re8 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may lease to 

9 the Savannah Bar Pilots Association, or a successor orgaVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:25 Mar 10, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S535.IS S535

pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 535 IS

1 nization, no more than 30,000 square feet of land and im2 provements within Fort Pulaski National Monument (re3 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Monument’’) at the loca4 tion on Cockspur Island that has been used continuously 

5 by the Savannah Bar Pilots Association since 1940. 

6 (b) RENTAL FEE AND PROCEEDS.— 

7 (1) RENTAL FEE.—For the lease authorized by 

8 this Act, the Secretary shall require a rental fee 

9 based on fair market value adjusted, as the Sec10 retary deems appropriate, for amounts to be ex11 pended by the lessee for property preservation, 

12 maintenance, or repair and related expenses. 

13 (2) PROCEEDS.—Disposition of the proceeds 

14 from the rental fee required pursuant to paragraph 

15 (1) shall be made in accordance with section 3(k)(5) 

16 of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(k)(5)). 

17 (c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A lease entered into 

18 under this section— 

19 (1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 

20 years and, at the Secretary’s discretion, for succes21 sive terms of no more than 10 years at a time; and 

22 (2) shall include any terms and conditions the 

23 Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the 

24 resources of the Monument and the public interest. 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 535 IS

1 (d) EXEMPTION FROM APPLICABLE LAW.—Except 

2 as provided in section 2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease author3 ized by this Act shall not be subject to section 3(k) of 

4 Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 1a–2(k)) or section 321 

5 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302). 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 5
 <LEGEND>
 This Schedule contains summary financial
 information extracted from the financial
 statements contained in the body of the
 accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified in its
 entirety by reference to such financial
 statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                  1
        
 <S>                           <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             OCT-31-1995
 <PERIOD-END>                  JAN-31-1996
 <CASH>                        10,177,938
 <SECURITIES>                  0
 <RECEIVABLES>                 0
 <ALLOWANCES>                  0
 <INVENTORY>                   0
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>              10,256,364
 <PP&E>                        934,227
 <DEPRECIATION>                709,144
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                11,465,908
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         442,805
 <BONDS>                       0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
 <PREFERRED>                   0
 <COMMON>                      264,182
 <OTHER-SE>                    10,758,921
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  11,465,908

 <SALES>                       0
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
 <CGS>                         0
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,088,268
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>              (116,949)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>              0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>               (971,319)
 <INCOME-TAX>                  0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>           (971,319)
 <DISCONTINUED>                0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>               0
 <CHANGES>                     0
 <NET-INCOME>                  (971,319)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.04)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                 0
         

</TABLE>
# C_2019164EN.01000801.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/8

---

Appeal brought on 10 January 2019 by the European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 25 October 2018 in Case T-286/15: KF v SatCen

(Case C-14/19 P)

(2019/C 164/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Satellite Centre (SatCen) (represented by: A. Guillerme, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: KF, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

| — | order the applicant in first instance to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant in first instance to bear all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, SatCen relies on the following grounds:

| — | the General Court erred in law in the finding that it has jurisdiction to rule on the heads of claim submitted by the applicant, as it (i) did not assess if the factors forming the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction were met and it (ii) erroneously interpreted the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law in the finding that it has jurisdiction to rule on the heads of claim submitted by the applicant, as it (i) did not assess if the factors forming the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction were met and it (ii) erroneously interpreted the principle of equal treatment.

| — | the General Court erred in law in the finding that the General Court’s jurisdiction to rule on this dispute is based on article 263 and 268 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law in the finding that the General Court’s jurisdiction to rule on this dispute is based on article 263 and 268 TFEU;

| — | the General court distorted the facts in examining KF’s claims as regards the conduct of the administrative inquiry; |
| --- | --- |

—

the General court distorted the facts in examining KF’s claims as regards the conduct of the administrative inquiry;

| — | the General Court erred in law interpreting article 1, annex IX of the SatCen’s Staff Regulations and the concept of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

—

the General Court erred in law interpreting article 1, annex IX of the SatCen’s Staff Regulations and the concept of the rights of the defence.

---
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Paul Mitrokostas, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
         Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Royal & Sun Alliance Bond-Backed
         Series 2002-2 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K
         containing distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report
         of the Trust;

2.       Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
         whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
         omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
         in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
         not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
         pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
         reports is included in these reports; and

4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
         review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
         reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
         obligations under that agreement.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 29, 2004


         /s/ PAUL MITROKOSTAS
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mitrokostas, Senior Vice President


                                      7
# C_2019263EN.01002801.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 15 April 2019 — Consiliul Concurenței v Whiteland Import Export SRL

(Case C-308/19)

(2019/C 263/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Consiliul Concurenței

Respondent: Whiteland Import Export SRL

Question referred

Must Articles 4(3) TEU and 101 TFEU be interpreted as requiring the courts of the Member States to interpret the provisions of national law governing the time-limit on the Competition Authority’s right to impose administrative penalties in accordance with the provisions of Article 25(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) and as precluding the interpretation of a provision of national law as meaning that an action interrupting the limitation period means only the formal action of initiating the investigation into an anti-competitive practice, without the subsequent actions taken for the purpose of such investigation falling within the same scope of the actions interrupting the limitation period?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---
#### Powell *et al. v.*Territory *ex rel.*Hays, *County Attorney.*

No. 2178,

Okla. T.

Opinion Filed March 9, 1909.

(100 Pac. 514.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Review—Ineffectual. The Supreme •Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Appeal from District powrl, Oklahoma County; B. F. Bunvell, J udge.*

Suit by the territory of Oklahoma, on relation of R. G. Hays, County Attorney of Oklahoma county, against B. H. Powell and another to enjoin a nuisance. From an order overruling defendant’s motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order and their demurrers, and granting a temporary injunction, defendants appeal.

Dismissed.

*E. J. Biddings,*for appellants.

KaNE, C. J.

This was a suit brought by the territory of Oklahoma, on the relation of R. G. Hays, county attorney of Oklahoma countjq to enjoin an alleged nuisance. The first ground for injunctional relief was based upon the theory that the law prior to statehood required\ that a person licensed to sell malt, spirituous, and vinous liquors should be a man of respectable character, and that inasmuch as the license issued to M. L. Powell, the wife of B. H. Powell, and B. H. Powell managed and controlled the business, this constituted selling malt, spirituous, and vinous liquors without a license, and was therefore a nuisance. There were other grounds alleged in the petition filed in the court bejow upon which it was claimed the license was void, but under our view of the case the question as to whether the license was valid or invalid is immaterial. On the • — ——■ day of July, 1907, the cause came on to be heard in the court below upon the *407defendant’s separate motions and demurrers, and upon the plaintiff’s application for a temporary injunction. The court overruled the motion of defendants to dissolve the temporary restraining order, and their demurrers, and granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction. From this order the defendants appealed.

From the foregoing statement it is apparent that this case falls within the rule laid down by this court in a considerable number of cases to the effect that:

> “The Supreme Court will not decide abstract or hypothetical cases disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical relief ,ean follow.”

If the facts alleged in the petition constituted a nuisance, it, no doubt, has long since been abated by operation of law. The sole question arising on the record is whether or not the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors prior to statehood constituted a common nuisance for which an injunction under. our statute would lie, upon the relation of the county attorney, in the name of the territory of Oklahoma, and without bond.

As no useful purpose could be served by inquiring into this question at this time, we are constrained to follow the line of cases above referred to, and dismiss the cause. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.