alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patricio Pena MARTINEZ, also known as Pato, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20549

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 20, 2011.

*403James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Juan Luis Guerra, Jr., Esq., Guerra & Farah, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patricio Pena Martinez pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The district court imposed a within-guideline sentence of 108 months in prison.

Martinez first argues that because the record clearly reflects that the district court believed that it had no discretion to consider his alleged cooperation in the absence of a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion, the district court effectively rendered the Guidelines mandatory, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

*Booker*rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. *See id.*at 245-46, 125 S.Ct. 738. *Booker*instructs appellate courts to review sentences for reasonableness in light of the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *Id.*at 260-62, 125 S.Ct. 738.

The district court’s statements at sentencing belie Martinez’s argument that the court believed it could not depart in the absence of a § 5K1.1 motion. The district court, after hearing the sentencing arguments of counsel, stated that it had considered the factors in § 3553(a) and found that a sentence within the guideline range was “appropriate.” The court declined to depart downward, believing that it was “not warranted.” *See United States v. Washington,*480 F.3d 309, 320 (5th Cir.2007) (“[T]he district court implicitly recognized that it could deviate from the Guidelines, but based on the facts before it, decided not to do so.”). The district court did not state that it could not depart because no § 5K1.1 motion had been filed; it merely noted that no § 5K1.1 motion had been filed.

We also reject Martinez’s assertion that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to file a § 5K1.1 motion for downward departure based on his *404substantial cooperation. Because Martinez neither shows that the Government bargained away its discretion to file a § 5K1.1 motion nor argues that the Government acted with unconstitutional motive, his downward departure claim is not reviewable. *See Wade v. United States,*504 U.S. 181, 185-87, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992); *United States v. Urbani,*967 F.2d 106, 110-11 (5th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0641 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THOMAS JERRY HILL,

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 July 29, 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2024

06/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0641
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated November 27, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 453 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-233556) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 27, 2019
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                         Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1997 and 1996



Note 4.  Other Current Assets:

     Other Current Assets consisted of the following:
                                                        9/30/97         9/30/96
     Contract Receivable, Sale of Tanglefoot
         Apartments - Current (B)                      $      0        $ 11,800
     Real Estate Contracts Receivable -
         Current (C)                                      5,675           1,500
     Real Estate Tax Certificates                         1,495           2,995

              Total                                    $  7,170        $ 16,255


(A) Sale of Insurance Agencies:

      During the year ended September 30, 1980, two (2) insurance agencies owned
      by the Company were sold on Contract to R.A.P. Enterprises, Inc. (See Note
      3).  Two (2) contracts were received for the sale.  The contracts were for
      thirty (30) years b earing interest at the rate of 10% per annum
      commencing on September 1, 1980, with regular monthly payments.

      One (1) contract was in the amount of $76,000 with monthly payments of
      $1,229.  The other contract was in the amount of $87,000 with monthly
      payments of $945.

      During the year ended September 30, 1995, these contracts were paid off
      and a discount of $1,371 was allowed for early payoff.

      R.A.P. Enterprises was owned by Ralph A. Parry, former President of Hynes
      & Howes Insurance Counselors, Inc.

      The remaining insurance agency (Davenport Agency) owned by the Company was
      sold as of January 1, 1981, to Ralph Parry Insurance Agency, Ltd.  A
      contract in the amount of $238,286 was received for the sale which
      included advances to officers.  The con tract was for thirty (30) years
      bearing interest at the rate of 10% per annum commencing on February 1,
      1981, with regular monthly payments.  The monthly payment was to be
      $2,090.  Ralph Parry Insurance Agency, Ltd. is also owned by Ralph A.
      Parry.

      This contract was also paid off during the year ended September 30, 1995.
      A discount of $18,806 was allowed for early payoff.

      The proceeds from these contracts were used to purchase real estate
      contracts receivable (see Note 4C) and to pay commissions payable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,600
<SECURITIES>                                     7,110
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,249
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,588
<PP&E>                                          10,977
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,555
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,894
<SALES>                                         79,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,206
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,531
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       675
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Market Central, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terrence J.
Leifheit President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

/s/ Terrence J. Leifheit
-------------------------------------------------
Terrence J. Leifheit
President and Chief Executive Officer
July 31, 2003


                                       18
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 9 (Friday, January 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 2949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 186; Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast (ADS-B)

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for 
Special Committee (SC)-186 meeting to be held February 5-8, 2001, 
starting at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Sheraton Four Points 
Barcelo Hotel, 10220 North Metro Parkway East, Phoenix, AZ 85051.
    The agenda will include: February 5: Working Group (WG)-4, Airborne 
Separation Assurance (ASA) Minimum Aviation System Performance 
Standards (MASPS); February 6, 7: WG-1, Operations and Implementation; 
WG-4, ASA MASPS; February 8: Plenary Session: (1) Welcome and 
Introductory Remarks; (2) Review of Meeting Agenda; (3) Review and 
Approval of the Previous Meeting Minutes, RTCA Paper No. 394-00/SC186-
175; (4) Briefing--FAA ADS-B ``Big Picture'' Roadmap; (5) Briefing--
ASDE-X Program; (6) Briefing--OCG-3 Memphis Op Eval-PM Status and 
Plans; (7) Briefing--DOD Requirements Process; (8) Eurocae WG-51 Status 
Report; (9) SC-186 Activity Reports for the following Working Groups: 
(a) WG-1, Operations & Implementation; (b) WG-2, Traffic Information 
Services--Broadcast (TIS-B); (c) WG-3, 1090 MHz Minimum Operational 
Performance Standards (MOPS); (d) WG-4, Application Technical 
Requirements; (e) WG-5, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) MOPS; (f) Ad 
Hoc MASPS Working Group (DO-242); (10) Review Action Items/Work 
Program; (11) Other Business; (12) Date and Location of Next Meeting; 
(13) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or the on-site contact, Greg 
Stayton at (602) 436-1234 (phone), (602) 436-5500 (fax) or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a3d283f3d74292e3b232e35341a6b77663b7a32283f3c67" http: 3com.com">3com.com</a>">greg.stayton@1-3com.com</a> (email). Members of the public may present a 
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2001.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 01-1094 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### EISERT, Respondent, v. BRANDT, Appellant.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Alwin Eisert against William H. Brandt. W. W. Bryan, for appellant. M. E. Duffy, for respondent.

FITZSIMONS, J.

Every exception taken by defendant is found between folios 71 and 76 of the printed case. We cannot find any merit in them. All the questions objected to were objectionable because they called upon the witness under examination to state conclusions or opinions, and were therefore properly excluded. The exception found at folio 74 is unavailing to defendant, because the contract did not require plaintiff to procure the acceptance of the architect Baxter. He only had the right to supervise the work done by plaintiff. Judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000205422
<NAME> HAMPSHIRE FUNDING, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,771,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               52,992,182
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,784,710
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,763,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,517,951
<BONDS>                                     50,851,618
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,344,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,763,977
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,957,607
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,421,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                535,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                   221,516
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            314,298
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   314,298
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HYNES & HOWES INSURANCE COUNSELORS, INC.
                          Notes to Financial Statements
                           September 30, 1998 and 1997


Note 5.  Capital Stock

         Hynes & Howes Insurance Counselors, Inc. is authorized to issue
         100,000,000 shares of no par value common stock.  Shares outstanding at
         September 30, 1998 and 1997 were 11,222,699 shares.

                                                     Number of Shares
                                                       September 30,
                                                 1998                 1997

         Number of shares issued           11,260,675           11,260,675
             Less Treasury Stock               37,976               37,976

Balance outstanding at end of year         11,222,699           11,222,699



Note 6. Paid-In-Capital

         During the year ended September 30, 1973, a stockholder purchased
         shares of stock in the Company and later gave the Company a check for
         $100, stating that he wanted it to be put into Paid-in-Capital.  He
         received no shares of stock for the $100.

Note 7. Earnings Per Share

         Earnings per share were computed by dividing the net income (loss) by
         the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the respective
         years.

         The average number of shares outstanding for each of the three years
         ended September 30, 1998 were 11,222,699.  This is the number of shares
         used in computing the earnings per share.

Note 8. Stock Held in Escrow

         At September 30, 1998 and 1997 there were 3,546,000 shares of the
         Company's common stock held in trust.  Those shares were owned by the
         Frank B. Howes Trust and by directors or former directors of the
         Company.  The Trust agreement was required by the Commissioner of
         Insurance of the State of Iowa in order to gain approval of the
         Company's stock issue of April, 1971.  Under terms of this agreement
         these shares were to be released after a period of five years or when
         the Company attains certain profitable goals for three consecutive
         years and upon written approval from the Commissioner of Insurance of
         the State of Iowa.  It is also required that should the Company
         dissolve during this period that the pro-rated distribution of assets
         to stockholders would be done on a basis which would pay these
         shareholders less per share than would be distributable to the
         shareholders of the new issue.  The Company's earnings to date have not
         been sufficient to qualify for the release of these shares held in
         escrow.  The condition requiring that these shares be held in escrow
         for five years has been fulfilled, however, the Commissioner of
         Insurance of the State of Iowa has not granted the written approval for
         the release of these shares at this time.  The shares will continue to
         be held in escrow until written approval for their release is granted
         by the Commissioner.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-60661

Summary Calendar

JUDY L. HARLOW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WAL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-218-SA)

April 8, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On June 27, 1996, Judy L. Harlow and John D. Harlow

(hereinafter "Harlow") instituted the present suit by filing a

complaint in the Circuit Court of Itawamba County, Mississippi,

against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter "Wal-Mart") alleging
2

that "on or about July 1, 1993" Judy Harlow sustained an injury

while on the premises of a Wal-Mart Store in Fulton, Mississippi,

when a large box of merchandise fell off a pallet and struck her in

the back and leg. At the time of that injury, Judy Harlow was

employed by Bassett Furniture Company, running a zipper machine and

showing cushions. Following her injury, Judy Harlow attempted to

return to work at Bassett Furniture, but she was unable to do her

former job of running the zipper machine without excruciating pain.

Wal-Mart removed the case from the state court in Mississippi to

the United States District Court for the Northern District of

Mississippi and filed its answer. The parties consented to trial

before a United States Magistrate Judge. In August 1997, Wal-Mart

moved in limine to exclude evidence of a determination by an

administrative law judge of the Social Security Administration that

Judy Harlow was disabled as set forth in a decision from the Social

Security Administration awarding her disability benefits which had

been handed down prior to this lawsuit. The district court granted

the motion in limine and made specific findings on the record that

the basis for the ruling was Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence. After trial before a jury, judgment was entered in favor

of Judy Harlow in the amount of $30,000. Harlow then filed a

motion for new trial alleging as error the trial court’s exclusion

of the Social Security decision; and the trial court denied the

motion for new trial. Harlow appeals to this Court the amount of

damages awarded in her jury trial "solely on the ground that the

lower court erred in excluding the Social Security decision." 
3

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

the reply brief. We accord the trial judge broad discretion in

ruling on questions relating to the admissibility of evidence and

we find nothing in this record to support a conclusion that the

trial judge abused his discretion in denying admissibility of the

Social Security determination under Rule 403. Accordingly, the

Final Judgment entered in this case on August 19, 1997, is 

AFFIRMED.