alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40614 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE JAIME RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CR-81-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Jaime Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but did not file a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses one possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Rodriguez’s offense level and sentence were increased for his having been deported after a prior aggravated-felony conviction which was not allegedin his indictment. An argument that the prior conviction should

have been alleged in the indictment is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). However, the continuing validity of Almendarez-Torres has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). See id . at 2362 (finding it “arguable that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided”). Counsel could have raised the issue on appeal in order to preserve it for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi

. Because our independent review of the record has revealed this possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. By our denying the motion to withdraw, Rodriguez preserves the Almendarez-Torres issue for further review. We pretermit further briefing, however, and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court because Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See id. , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000)(noting that the Supreme Court in Apprendi expressly declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres ), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). This court must follow the precedent set in Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
OWRD 11499100 - SYCAN R BL SNAKE CR NR BEATTYLatitude: 42.487Longitude: -121.278Elevation: None

OWRD 11499100 - Sycan R Bl Snake Cr Nr Beatty

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taylor Butte Site Page...



Taylor Butte
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          53,540
<SECURITIES>                                    64,298
<RECEIVABLES>                                      516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,436
<PP&E>                                          10,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           167
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,648
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,538
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,896)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,896)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.63)
        

</TABLE>
ex_187381.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


Executive Officer 2019 Bonuses Earned


 


	
			Name

				 	
			Total Bonus Earned 

				 
	
			Chris Olivier

				 	$	414,814.04	 
	
			Kori Belzer

				 	$	208,632.17	 
	
			James Segreto

				 	$	181,838.97	 
	
			Steve Adolph

				 	$	20,600.00	 
	
			Gerry Marrone

				 	$	250,401.25	 
	
			Husam Mufti

				 	$	141,234.15
---

EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-55180, 333-63268, 333-68718, 333-81290, 333-104402, 333-108529, 333-125194, 333-135553,  333-149067, 333-155865, 333-160003, 333-166091, and 333-172027) of PAID, INC. of our report dated March 11, 2011, on our audit of the financial statements of PAID, INC., which appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of PAID, INC.





/s/ CCR LLP





Westborough, Massachusetts


March 11, 2011
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Tim Paterson-Brown, ChiefExecutive Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                               theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
|                   | By:    | /s/ TIM PATERSON-BROWN  |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
| November 22, 2010 |   |                    |

 

----
1 United States v. Booker , 125 S.Ct 738 (2005). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3015

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa * Shawn Lee Drinnon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 25, 2004 Filed: July 20, 2005

___________ Before BYE, MELLOY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury convicted the defendant of conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. On appeal, the defendant argues that the court made a number of errors in the computation of his Sentencing Guidelines range. Also, he raises a Booker 1 claim. The district court addressed a number of issues at the sentencing hearing. These included a claim that the district court must apply the standard of proof of2 Blakely v. Washington , 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004). -2- beyond a reasonable doubt in making sentencing determinations. The defendant also claimed that the Guidelines range should be limited by the jury’s findings. We now know, in light of Blakely 2 and Booker , that: the district court has an obligation to determine a Sentencing Guidelines range using a preponderance of the evidence standard; the resultant Guidelines range is merely advisory; and it serves as one of the factors for consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Booker , 125 S.Ct at 764. Neither Blakelynor Booker changed the method of determining a Guidelines range. See United States v. Pirani , 406 F.3d 543, 552 n.4 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Nothing in Booker suggests that sentencing judges are required to find sentence-enhancing facts beyond a reasonable doubt under the advisory Guidelines regime.”). Consequently, the district court did not commit error when it used a preponderance of the evidence standard and refused to be limited by the jury’s finding as to drug quantity in calculating the Guidelines range. As to the defendant’s specific challenges to the court’s Guidelines determination, we find them to be without merit and summarily affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Although the district court did not err in its determination of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, it was error to apply the Guidelines as mandatory, and there was a Sixth Amendment violation in this case. The defendant objected at sentencing, argued that the court should be bound by the jury determination, argued that the court should apply a standard beyond a reasonable doubt, and specifically cited Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Under Pirani , 406 F.3d at 549- 50, this is sufficient to preserve “Booker error.” Because the defendant preserved this error, and the government has not demonstrated the error to be harmless, we are required under Booker to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing using the Booker remedial scheme.-3- In conclusion, we reject the defendant's claim that the Sentencing Guidelines range determination was in any way erroneous, but we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing using the Booker remedial scheme.

______________________________
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2276 

To establish a moratorium on oil and gas-related seismic activities off the 

coastline of the State of Florida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. MURPHY of Florida (for himself, Ms. FRANKEL of Florida, Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. POSEY, Ms. GRAHAM, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. 

BROWN of Florida, and Ms. CASTOR of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To establish a moratorium on oil and gas-related seismic 

activities off the coastline of the State of Florida, 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 ‘‘Seismic Moratorium 

5 Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2276 IH

1 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS-RELATED SEISMIC 

2 ACTIVITIES IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC 

3 ZONE OFF THE COASTLINE OF THE STATE OF 

4 FLORIDA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

6 (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 

7 person may conduct geological or geophysical activities (as 

8 those terms are described in the final programmatic envi9 ronmental impact statement of the Bureau of Ocean En10 ergy Management entitled ‘‘Atlantic OCS Proposed Geo11 logical and Geophysical Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South 

12 Atlantic Planning Areas’’ and completed February 2014) 

13 in support of oil or gas exploration and development in 

14 any area located within the exclusive economic zone (as 

15 defined in section 107 of title 46, United States Code) 

16 located off the coastline of the State of Florida. 

17 (b) TERMINATION OF MORATORIUM.—The morato18 rium described in subsection (a) shall only be terminated 

19 if the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos20 pheric Administration determines that the reasonably 

21 foreseeable impacts of the geological or geophysical activi22 ties described in subsection (a) to individuals or popu23 lations of marine mammals, sea turtles, or fish are mini24 mal. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Employers Insurance of Wassau, Respondent, v Tri Star Building Corporation, Appellant.

In an action to recover an alleged balance of earned insurance premiums on several insurance policies issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), dated January 14, 1986, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and directed the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the principal sum of $21,109.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In contrast to the plaintiff’s detailed specifications and evidentiary support of its assertions on its motion for summary judgment, the defendant’s papers consist of conclusory, general charges and do not document, or in any respect provide, any instances of the alleged misclassifications, misratings or "abusive audit practices in violation of the regulations of the New York State Insurance Department”.

Although, following the commencement of the litigation, the defendant sent a written complaint to the New York State Insurance Department to the effect that the earned premium claimed by the plaintiff based on the worksheets does not agree with the defendant’s payroll records, the defendant has not made any effort to document that claim with specifications and copies of its records showing any alleged discrepancies vis*665á-vis the plaintiffs records. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51708-51709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20051]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17147 and #17148; NEW YORK Disaster Number NY-
00208]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of New York

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of New York (FEMA-4615-DR), dated 09/05/
2021. Incident: Remnants of Hurricane Ida. Incident Period: 09/01/2021 
through 09/03/2021.

DATES: Issued on 09/12/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/04/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/06/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

[[Page 51709]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of New York, dated 09/05/2021, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Suffolk.
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only): All contiguous 
counties previously declared.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2021-20051 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AS SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR SUCH PERIOD
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              5
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     139
<ALLOWANCES>                                        4
<INVENTORY>                                       133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  301
<PP&E>                                            377
<DEPRECIATION>                                    188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             130
<BONDS>                                           139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                        316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      638
<SALES>                                           717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  717
<CGS>                                             483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    94
<INCOME-TAX>                                       35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                59
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       59
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.79<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.77<F1>
<FN>
<F1> RESTATEMENT REFLECTED HEREIN IS THE RESULT OF THE PRORATION AND STOCK
ELECTION PROCEDURES RELATED TO THE AUGUST 19, 1999 MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN
NOTE 2 OF NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN
BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### John Moody, Respondent, v Svetlana Sorokina, Appellant.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided May 8, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-20-00071-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: D-1-GN-19-002613

Style: TitleMax of Texas, Inc.

v City of Austin and Anne Morgan, City Attorney of The City of Austin; and Rondella 

Hawkins, Officer, City of Austin Office of Telecommunications and Regulatory Affairs, 

in their Official and Individual Capacities

Date motion filed*: 12/17/21

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellees

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Guerra

Date: January 11, 2022
#### Corrigan v. Morris *et*al., *Appellants.*

Jurisdiction of Court of Appeals: suit on special tax-bill. Where a county is a party defendant to a suit to enforce a special tax-bill, in which judgment is rendered for plaintiff and execution issued, and afterwards a motion to quash is filed and overruled, from which an appeal is taken, and it appears that the county was not a party to the subsequent proceedings, title to real estate is not involved, and the amount in dispute being less than twenty-five hundred dollars, the case comes within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. -

*Appeal from, JacJcson Circuit Court.—*IIon. T. A. GrILL, Judge.

Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.

*Scaritt & Scaritt*for appellants.

*Chrysler & Kenyon*for respondent.

Brace, J.

The respondent brought suit against the appellants, to which the county of Jackson was made a party defendant, to enforce the lien of two special tax-bills, issued by the City of Kansas, on a certain lot in said city, for the improvement of a certain street therein. Judgment was obtained against all the defendants in that suit, a transcript thereof filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county *175and an execution issued thereon. The appellants then filed a motion in the circuit court to quash the execution. This motion was overruled by the circuit court, and they appeal. . To this motion and the subsequent proceedings thereon the county of Jackson was not a party, and is not a party to this appeal. The title to real estate is not involved in the questions to be determined thereon *(State ex rel. v. Court of*Appeals, 67 Mo. 200; *Dunn v.*Miller, 96 Mo. 324), and the amount in dispute is below the jurisdiction of this court. The case is properly within the appellate jurisdiction of the Kansas City court of appeals, to which it is ordered that it be transferred.

All concur.
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2097

___________

Thomas G. Wolfin, Jr., *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Jessie Crump; Randy Grass; James * Eastern District of Missouri.

Reed; Jeffrey A. Burgert, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1998

 Filed: May 18, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas G. Wolfin Jr. appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his

1

complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to

comply with the court’s pretrial-compliance order. Given Wolfin&s pattern of

noncompliance throughout the proceedings and the warning he received, we conclude

the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Rodgers v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.,

135 F.3d 1216, 1219-22 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review; “dismissal with prejudice
-2-

is not subject to reversal . . . where appellant has engaged in several acts of wilful

noncompliance with orders of the court”). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny

appellees& motion to strike appellant&s brief. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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