alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo OSORIO-ALBA, also known as Jose Trujillo-Bianco, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50798.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*612PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ricardo Osorio-Alba raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 • U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
|    |                                                                                                                                                          |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019, of Pioneer Energy Services Corp.; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |
| /s/ Wm. Stacy Locke                   |
| Wm. Stacy Locke                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>          U S Dollars

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                             1,358,200
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        234,774
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,672,780
<PP&E>                               897,525
<DEPRECIATION>                       329,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    76,588,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             35,741,882
<BONDS>                           34,297,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                       36,248,175
<COMMON>                          23,768,497
<OTHER-SE>                       (19,169,989)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      76,588,565
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     343,572
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  16,378,341
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 7,831,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (16,034,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (16,034,769)
<DISCONTINUED>                     8,144,073
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (7,890,697)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.67)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32, Form 10-Q

Kansas City Life Insurance Company

KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

First Quarter 2011

The undersigned certify that the registrants Form 10-Q report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the registrant.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Philip Bixby                                          
|R. Philip Bixby                                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board
|                                                             
|/s/ Tracy W. Knapp                                           
|Tracy W. Knapp                                               
|Senior Vice President, Finance                               

Date: April 29, 2011
in professional misconduct after the execution of the plea, and violated any 

of the same rules that he admitted to in this plea, the hearing panel shall 

recommend to the Supreme Court the imposition of the stayed suspension, 

along with any additional sanction that may be warranted in the new 

matter(s); (2) Fronczek shall pay restitution to the persons named in the 

conditional plea agreement for a total of $113,980; (3) Fronczek shall pay 

the costs of the disciplinary proceeding, excluding Bar Counsel and staff 

salaries, within 30 days of receipt of the State Bar's bill of costs; (4) 

Fronczek shall timely pay any final civil judgment issued against him with 

regard to the events and circumstances pleaded to in paragraphs 36 

through 41 of the conditional plea agreement; (5) if Fronczek should leave 

the public sector and choose to return to private practice, he must notify 

the State Bar and obtain a mentor, approved by the State Bar, who will 

mentor him for a period of one year; and (6) Fronczek shall take four 

additional CLE classes in the area of ethics and/or law practice 

management. 

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the guilty 

plea agreement should be approved. See SCR 113(1). We hereby impose a 

two-year-and-six-month suspension, with two years stayed and six months 

actual suspension, commencing on the date this order is filed. 

Additionally, Fronczek must comply with all of the conditions in the plea 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 19474 e 
/ita-‘-'94-43c ,CA. 

Hardesty 

P`g ,J. 

Douglas 

, J. 

Saitta 

Parraguirre 

1 

Cha 

Gibbons 

agreement, as outlined above. The parties shall comply with the 

applicable provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board 

William B. Terry, Chartered 

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A .7.e.
#### Richard Delaney KYLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerald GARRETT; Troy Fox, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-41455.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Richard Delaney Kyles, Rosharon, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Delaney Kyles, Texas prisoner #257935, appeals the district court’s dis*572missal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous. As a threshold matter, we are obligated to examine sua sponte the basis of our jurisdiction. *See Williams v. Chater,*87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1996). Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), the filing of a timely FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e) motion renders a notice of appeal ineffective until the district court enters an order disposing of the motion. Kyles filed a timely Rule 59(e) motion, but filed his notice of appeal before the district court ruled on the motion. His notice of appeal is, therefore, ineffective.

Consequently, this case must be remanded, and the record returned, so that the district court may rule on Kyles’ Rule 59(e) motion “as expeditiously as possible, consistent with a just and fair disposition thereof.” *Burt v. Ware,*14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir.1994). We hold the appeal in abeyance until the notice becomes effective, and we retain jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand. We also instruct the clerk of this court to process the appeal immediately upon the return of the case from the district court.

LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.

*

 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.
#### STATE v. CLARK

No. 146 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 197.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 March 1974. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal allowed 5 March 1974.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            12,393
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            3,163
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              3,089
<EQUITIES>                                         700
<MORTGAGE>                                       2,545
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      131
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  19,876
<CASH>                                              27
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,544
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,038
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,961
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 19,021
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 54
<POLICY-OTHER>                                     329
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              214
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                  1,148
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              300
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,961
<PREMIUMS>                                         338
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                353
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  48
<OTHER-INCOME>                                      81
<BENEFITS>                                         407
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    215
<INCOME-TAX>                                        76
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                139
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       139
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 23, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-2232 Lower Tribunal No. F89-37297

________________ 

### Christopher Cole, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge. Christopher Cole, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Cole v. State, 786 So. 2d 1203, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“In view of the response of the Florida Parole Commission stating that Defendant is parole eligible, and defendant's supplemental reply, we find that the court correctly determined that the terms of defendant's plea agreement were satisfied.”)
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 26, 2014

No. 04-14-00256-CR

Jeffrey LEE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6806

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due October 9, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,574,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,986,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,102,000
<PP&E>                                      78,780,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,968,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,672,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,049,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       20,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       172,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,423,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,672,000
<SALES>                                     65,628,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            66,590,000
<CGS>                                       54,035,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,035,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,287,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,865,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (250,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (86,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (164,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (164,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QIN ZHANG, an individual,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation;

et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56362

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00024-PSG-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2015** 

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Qin Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action

alleging federal and state law violations arising out of prior state court proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

FILED

JUL 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154

(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s federal claims sua sponte for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the

claims were a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment or were

“inextricably intertwined” with that judgment. See id. at 1163-65 (discussing

Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev., 474 F.3d 609,

616 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiff’s claim because the

relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s

decision was wrong and thus void”); Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp.,

Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (a court may dismiss sua sponte for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction without violating due process).

The district court properly dismissed Zhang’s state law claims due to the

absence of subject matter jurisdiction over any federal claims. See Scott v.

Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court has

no discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it

dismisses federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).

Zhang’s requests for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, are denied

as unnecessary. 

2 13-56362
The Google defendants’ request for sanctions, set forth in their April 11,

2014 answering brief, is denied.

Pursuant to the May 28, 2014 clerk order, the Clerk is directed to strike the

reply brief filed on March 27, 2014.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-56362
#### JOHN JAY SIDOTE, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10226

December 20, 1978

587 P.2d 1317

*Horace R. Goff,*Public Defender, and *J. Thomas Susich,*Chief Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Steven McMorris,*District Attorney, Douglas County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

To avoid prosecution for murder, appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery. The district court imposed a 10-year sentence for manslaughter, with a 15-year consecutive sentence for robbery. After his plea bargaining below, appellant contends on appeal, for the first time, that the district court erred in sentencing him for robbery. He premises this contention on the argument that the robbery charge was barred by the statute of limitations, which he styles as “jurisdictional.” We affirm the district court.

We do not believe the appellant may consciously invite district court action perceived as favorable to him, and then claim *763it as error on appeal. Normally, if intent exists to litigate them, even possible “jurisdictional” issues should be presented in the first instance to the district judge, who is capable of resolving any factual questions which may develop. As we said in Junior v. State, 91 Nev. 439, 537 P.2d 1204 (1975): “Thus, we feel that [appellant’s] failure to timely challenge the information, and his tacit acceptance of it as a valid pleading on behalf of the State, precludes a challenge now, for the first time, on appeal.” 91 Nev. at 441.

Affirmed.
|   | Exhibit 32(a), Form 10-Q |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | Kansas City Life Insurance Company |
|--------|------------------------------------|

 

**KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

First            Quarter 2008

The            undersigned certify that the registrant’s Form 10-Q report fully complies with            the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15            U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly            represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations            of the registrant.

 

 

 

| /s/R. Philip Bixby |
|--------------------|

R.            Philip Bixby

President, Chief Executive Officer,

and            Chairman of the Board

 

 

| /s/Tracy W. Knapp |
|-------------------|

Tracy            W. Knapp

Senior            Vice President, Finance

Date:            April 30, 2008
Exhibit 32.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jeffrey S. Mathiesen, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Delphax Technologies Inc.(the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 • the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         Dated: December 27, 2004   By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Mathiesen               Jeffrey S. Mathiesen       Vice President and Chief Financial Officer