alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Earl C. Rumsey and Mrs. Earl C. Rumsey, *Appellants,*v. E. Wegeslbaum, et al, *Appellees.*

En Bane.

Opinion filed April 1,1929.

*J. Stockton Bryan, Edwin T. Osteen*and *S. L. Lowenstein, Jr.,*for Appellants;

*Leitner do Leitner*for Appellees.

Bueord, J.

This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The appeal is from the final decree.

An examination of the record discloses two errors in the decree.

The record having been seen and inspected and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is error in the said decree insofar as the amount of principal and interest found in the decree to be due is excessive. The sum stated is $13,078.01. This sum should have been stated as $13,-054.77. It appearing that the balance due July 6, 1926, after payments made on that date, was $11,819.15; that interest had accrued up to the date of the decree for one year; three months and twenty-two days in the sum of $1,235.62, making a total, as above stated, of $13,054.77. There is further error in the said decree insofar as it allows a solicitor’s fee of $800.00. See Brett v. First National Bank of Marianna and also Brooks v. Roberts decided at this term. It is ordered that the Chancellor may take testimony for the complainants as to the amount of Solicitor’s *435fees, within the terms of the mortgage, agreed by them to be paid to their Solicitors for their services and amend the decree rendered by substituting such amount so proven for the sum allowed in the decree appealed from, and by substituting $13,054.77 for principal and interest in lieu of $13,078.01, as it appears in the final decree. The decree is affirmed in other respects. The costs of this appeal shall be taxed against the appellees.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Jesus MALDONADO-LANDAVERDE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9318.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40946

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GAUDENCIO VILLA-GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-1081-1

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gaudencio Villa-Gutierrez pleaded guilty to being found in

the United States after deportation and was sentenced to

30 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release.

Villa-Gutierrez argues that the district court erred in

treating his prior state conviction for attempted possession of

narcotic drugs as an aggravated felony. He concedes that his

argument is foreclosed by current Fifth Circuit law, citing

United States v. Rivera, 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001) and

United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.
No. 05-40946

-2-

1997). Thus, the district court did not err in applying the

eight-level adjustment to his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on his prior state felony drug conviction. 

United States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Jerome v. United States, 318 U.S. 101 (1943) does not affect the

binding precedential value of Rivera and Hinojosa-Lopez.

Villa-Gutierrez argues that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. 

Specifically, he argues that the viability of Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), is in doubt in light of

later Supreme Court cases.

Villa-Gutierrez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres. Although Villa-Gutierrez contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Villa-Gutierrez properly

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
**Release: #4227-99 (Civ 93-C-1022H)**

**For Release: January 8, 1999**

**Oklahoma District Court Orders $3.4 Million Restitution Payment and      Bars Former Tulsa Resident, Richard Conroy Bell, From the Commodity      Futures Industry for Commodity Pool Scheme**

**WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)      announced today that on December 11, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Sven      Erik Holmes of the Northern District of Oklahoma entered a consent order      of permanent injunction against Richard Conroy Bell, of Santa Fe, New      Mexico, his defunct company, Barrett Bell Investment Corporation (BBIC),      and two partnerships formed by Bell, Manticore Resources and ZIA      Investments.**

      The order permanently enjoins Bell and his entities from further      violations of certain provisions of federal commodity law and CFTC      regulations, bars them from any activity in the futures industry for      themselves or on behalf of others, and requires restitution payments to      customers totaling approximately $3.4 million, plus pre- and      post-judgement interest. The court's order stems from a six-count      civil injunctive action filed by the CFTC in November 1993 (see CFTC News      Release #3719-93, November 22, 1993).    

      The court's order finds that, between 1990 and November 1993, Bell      and BBIC defrauded approximately 110 investors of approximately $8      million in a commodity pool formed to trade oil futures. The court's      order further finds that Bell and BBIC defrauded these investors by,      among other things, sending statements to investors that falsely      represented that their funds had been used to trade oil futures and had      generated profits, when they had not.    

      The order also finds that Bell and BBIC used investors' funds to make      returns of principal and purported profits to earlier investors, in a      manner akin to a "Ponzi" scheme. Further, the order finds that      all of the defendants converted investors' funds to their personal      use, purchasing such items as a home, a twin-jet airplane, gold coins,      and interests in oil wells and gas leases. Finally, the order finds that      Bell and his company, BBIC, acted as commodity pool operators without      being registered as such with the CFTC.    

      In October 1994, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma      charged Bell with wire fraud in a single count information concerning      these same activities. Bell pled guilty and has recently completed a      44-month prison sentence.    

      The receiver in the CFTC's civil action, Gary C. Clark, Esq., a Tulsa      attorney, has already gathered and returned approximately $4.5 million to      defrauded investors pursuant to previous court orders.    

      # # #
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of PrimaCom AG, a stock
corporation organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany (the
"Company"), for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned officers 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, to such
officer's knowledge that:

1.   the Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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
     as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



Dated: April 26, 2004                         /s/ Stefan Schwenkedel
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Stefan Schwenkedel




Dated: April 26, 2004                         /s/ Jens Kircher
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Jens Kircher
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Cognitive Systems.                    

*Date:*                         June 7, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622,                         *bissonettegb@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 12, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-08193 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 2 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00435- CV

OLUWAYEMISI ADEOYE AND ANTHONY ADEOYE, Appellants

V. EAGLEWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 458th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14- DCV -212484

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an attempted appeal from an order signed May 7, 2018 denying appellants’ motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. CMH
Homes v. Perez , 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011); Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. v.
Kirklin , 497 S.W.3d 458, 460 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied)

.2

Because there is no specific statutory authorization, an interlocutory appeal is not permitted in this situation. See In re Conner , 458 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Tex. 2015) (granting mandamus relief after finding relator had no adequate remedy by appeal to challenge the denial of a motion to dismiss).
On June 19, 2018, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before July 5, 2018.
See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response was filed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of PBS Holding, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick D. Matthews,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Patrick D. Matthews |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

 

PatrickD. Matthews

 

ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

PBSHolding, Inc.

 

March 31,2006

 

----
Dana WILKINS, petitioner, v. Armstead WILKINS.

No. 17-5313.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
John E. DOWLING, petitioner, v. PENSION PLAN FOR SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION NAD AFFILIATES, et al.

No. 17-1010.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
#### P. L. Weeks, et al., *Appellants,*v. D. T. Carlton, as Guardian, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 15, 1929.

*B. B. Sturkie,*for Appellants;

*Leitner & Leitner,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., and Giblin, Circuit Judge, concur.
#### E. L. Martin, et al., *Appellants,*v. James N. Hayden, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 20, 1929.

Petition for rehearing denied April 3, 1929.

*J. G. Bavant,*for Appellants;-

*268
      *Wm. G. King*and *J. Frank Houghton,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being’ now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Long, Circuit Judge, concur.
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Learn & Protect Homepage
                        Enforcement News
                        Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip or Compliant
                        RED List
                        Office of Proceedings
                        Learning Resources
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


14 Digital Asset Risks to Remember
    
            The more you understand the risks of your investment, the more effectively you can minimize their potential effects. Here are some common risks associated with digital assets.
      
    
  PDF
              DigitalAssetRisks.pdf170.05 KB


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
# L_2005138EN.01001701.xml

| 1.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/17

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation

The Agreement between the European Community and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (1) entered into force on 1 May 2005, the procedure provided for in Article 21 of the Agreement having been completed on 23 March 2005.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 43.

1

---
Randy HOLKESVIG, petitioner, v. SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA.

No. 17-126.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
Christopher Aguilar QUIROZ, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 17-5344.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
In Re Taryn CHRISTIAN, petitioner.

No. 17-8225.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$500,000.00                                              Date: February 23, 2006

      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, STANDARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a corporation duly
organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of Indiana, promises
to pay to the order of SAM SCHMIDT AND SHEILA SCHMIDT the sum of Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00), at 2202 Chatsworth Court, Henderson, Nevada
89074 or at such other place as the holder hereof may direct in writing, with
nine and one half percent (9.5%) interest thereon. This Promissory Note and all
accrued interest thereon is payable on or before May 1, 2006.

      In the event of default of payment, penalties and interest at the rate of
twelve per centum (12%) per annum will be applied to the unpaid balance.

      No delay or omission on the part of the holder hereof in the exercise of
any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver thereof, and no single or partial
exercise by the holder hereof of any right or remedy shall preclude other or
further exercise thereof or of any other right or remedy.

      Signed and delivered at Indianapolis, Indiana this 23rd day of February,
2006.

                                 STANDARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

                                 By:    /s/ Ronald D. Hunter
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Ronald D. Hunter, Chairman, Chief Executive
                                     Officer and President

<PAGE>

                            EXTENSION OF PAYMENT DATE
                               OF PROMISSORY NOTE

      For good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Sam Schmidt and Sheila Schmidt hereby extend the due date of that
certain $500,000 Promissory Note dated February 23, 2006 from Standard
Management Corporation, from May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2006. A copy of the
Promissory Note is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

      Signed and delivered at Indianapolis, Indiana this 12th day of May, 2006
and effective as of May 1, 2006.

   /s/ Sam Schmidt                           /s/ Sheila Schmidt
------------------------------            ----------------------------------
Sam Schmidt                               Sheila Schmidt