alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1620EA

_____________

Arkansas ACORN Fair Housing, Inc., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Bailey Corporation, doing business as *

The Waterford Apartments, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: September 24, 1998

Filed: September 30, 1998 

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas Acorn Fair Housing, Inc. appeals an adverse grant of summary

judgment on its Fair Housing Act claim that the Bailey Corporation's rental agents

misrepresented available housing information in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)

(1994). Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that an

extended discussion is not warranted. We see no error by the district court and affirm

the judgment substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Population Research Infrastructure Program.                    

*Date:*                         March 20, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6898,                         *wallsc@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research, 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 20, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 08-857  Filed 2-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                  [EXHIBIT 99.2]

                            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 of Valley National Gases Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert D. Scherich, Chief Financial Officer 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, 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/ Robert D. Scherich
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Robert D. Scherich
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        September 24, 2002
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.1
PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount $150,000.00                   Baton Rouge, Louisiana
September 29, 2000

     This note replaces the original promissory note dated April 5, 2000.

     For value received, I, WE, or EITHER OF US, in solido, promise to pay to
the order of RANDAL A. GOMEZ the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND
($150,000.00) DOLLARS and borrowers will repay lender NINETY THOUSAND (90,000)
SHARES OF STOCK IN SHADOWS BEND DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation.  This
note will be payable to American Fidelity Mortgage, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Due date shall be on or before October 31, 2000.

     In the event that the closing of the Nevada company does not occur prior
to the due date of the note, I, WE or EITHER OF US, agree to pay a floating
interest rate plus 1% per annum on the note with a three year balloon.

     Shadows Bend Development, Inc., reserves the right to pre-pay all or part
of this obligation without penalty.

     In the event of Default of payment in full by October 31, 2000; at the
option of the holder hereof, without notice of default, mature the entire
Obligation.  In the event this note is placed in the hands of an attorney, for
collection the endorsers of this note agree to pay all cost incurred with the
enforcement and collection of this agreement.

/s/ Michael W. Sciacchetano             /s/ Randal Gomez
Michael W. Sciacchetano                     Randal Gomez
(Individually)

Shadows Bend Development, Inc.
By: /s/ Michael W. Sciacchetano
President/CEO

<PAGE>
EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE

As per our conversation, I, Randal A. Gomez (pledgor), hereby agree to extend
the original promissory note for $150,000.00 dated April 5, 2000 until October
31, 2000.

/s/ Randal A. Gomez              /s/ Michael W. Sciacchetano
    Randal A. Gomez, Pledgor         Michael W. Sciacchetano

    9/27/2000                        9/27/2000

<PAGE>
EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE

American Fidelity
10854 Dardale Avenue
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821

Mike Sciacchetano
Shadows Bend Development, Inc.
17050 Medical Center Drive
Suite 314
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816

RE:  Extension of Promissory Note Dated 10/31/2000

As per our conversation, I, Randal Gomez hereby do agree to extend the
original promissory note for $150,000.00 dated 4/15/2000 until January 01,
2003.

/s/ Randal Gomez              /s/ Michael Sciacchetano
    Randal Gomez, Pledgor         Michael Sciacchetano, President

    11/01/2000                    11/01/2000
Exhibit 2.13  Peregrine Systems, Inc.
3611 Valley Centre Drive
San Diego, California 92130
Attention: General Counsel  August 2, 2002  TRIRIGA Real Estate & Facilities LLC
4285 South Polaris Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89103  Ladies and Gentlemen: Reference is made to the Asset Purchase
Agreement dated July 31, 2002 (the Purchase Agreement), by and between
Peregrine Systems, Inc, (Peregrine) and TRIRIGA Real
Estate & Facilities LLC (TRIRIGA).  Capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement.  This is to confirm that Peregrine and TRIRIGA
each agree as follows:  1.The Purchase Price contained in
Section 1.3 of the Purchase Agreement is hereby reduced from $5,000,000.00
to $4,893,281.96 to reflect collection by Peregrine since July 31, 2002 of
certain accounts receivable included in the Acquired Assets and listed on Schedule 1.1
of the Purchase Agreement.  2.Schedule 1.1 of the Purchase
Agreement is hereby amended by deleting from Section 1.3 of that
schedule the accounts receivable listed on Exhibit A attached
hereto.  3.Except as expressly provided herein, the
remaining terms of the Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.  Your signature below will confirm your
agreement as to these matters. Thank you for your attention.  Very truly yours,PEREGRINE SYSTEMS, INC.By:
  /s/ Gary G. GreenfieldName:
  Gary G.GreenfieldTitle:
  Chief
  Executive Officer  
   Acknowledged
  and Agreed:TRIRIGA
  Real Estate & Facilities LLCBy:
  /s/ Anthony A. Marnell III VP/General CounselAnthony
  A. Marnell IIIManager,
  President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7184

LONDELL ABDUL TALIB DIN-WATKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versusGEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1447-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Londell Abdul Talib Din-Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as “filed” on July 8, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 14, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Lonell Abdul Talib Din-Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Din-Watkins v. Hinkle , No. CA-97-1447-AM (E.D. Va. July 14, 1998 * ).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7184

LONDELL ABDUL TALIB DIN-WATKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Haynesville Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1447-AM)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Londell Abdul Talib Din-Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H.

Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as

“filed” on July 8, 1998, the district court’s records show that it

was entered on the docket sheet on July 14, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet

that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Lonell Abdul Talib Din-Watkins seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Din-Watkins v. Hinkle, No. CA-97-1447-AM (E.D. Va. July 14, 1998*).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                    31,888
<RECEIVABLES>                                      618
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,848
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,097
<BONDS>                                         31,481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,246
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,038
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    26
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    267
<INCOME-TAX>                                        92
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    171
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                          77,749
<SECURITIES>                                   684,327
<RECEIVABLES>                                  332,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (170,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,068,559
<PP&E>                                         189,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                (74,343)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,422,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          309,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,583
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,113,363
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,774,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,900,995)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Stephen C. Yevich, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 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, that to my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATED this 6thday of May 2009.



/s/ Stephen C. YevichStephen C. YevichSenior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Brinks
Home Security Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Brinks Home Security Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEANDRO ORTIZ

- LUGO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 805 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of April, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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 TowerBancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Franklin T. Klink, III, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Franklin T. Klink, III |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Chief Financial Officer         |
|   | November 14, 2005          |

 

----
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**_____________** No. 22 - 50988 **consolidated with** No. 22 - 50993

**_____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Gilberto Betero -**  **Carrillo,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:22 - CR - 434 - 1, 4:19 - CR - 872 - 2

**______________________________** Before **Jones, Haynes,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Gilberto Betero - Car r illo appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), as well as the judgment revoking his term of supervised release for a prior offense. The latter challenge is unbriefed and thus abando ned. See United States v. Reagan , 596 F.3d 251, 254 – 55 (5th Cir. 2010).

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50988 Document: 00516740670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2023No. 22 - 50988 c/w No. 22 - 50993

2 On appeal, Betero - Car r illo contends that the recidivism enhancement in § 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum est ablished by § 1326(a) based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Betero - Car r illo acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez - Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998 ), he nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review and has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition . Because Betero - Car r illo is correct that his argument is foreclosed, see United States v. Pervis , 937 F.3d 546, 553 – 54 (5th Cir. 2019), summary disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp ., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, Betero - Car r illo’s motion is **GRANTED** , and the district court’s judgments are **AFFIRMED** . Case: 22-50988 Document: 00516740670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2023