alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-1924

___________________________ Tamera Peerson-Kershner lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 1 Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________ Submitted: December 1, 2021 Filed: December 13, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

1 Kilolo Kijakazi has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).Tamera Peerson-Kershner appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the

denial of disability insurance benefits. We find that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Kraus v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1019, 1023-24 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). Specifically, we find that the administrative law judge (ALJ) properly evaluated Peerson-Kershner’s subjective complaints, see Milam v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 978, 985 (8th Cir. 2015) (ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s relatively conservative treatment history); Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (if impairment can be controlled by medication, it cannot be considered disabling); and properly evaluated the medical opinion evidence in determining Peerson-Kershner’s residual functional capacity, see Kraus, 988 F.3d at 1025 (ALJ properly discredited treating physician’s opinion on checkbox form, which provided no explanation or evidence in support of his conclusions, and which was not consistent with treatment notes); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency medical consultants are highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation). We also find that the ALJ did not fail to fully develop the record, as the available evidence about Peerson-Kershner’s impairments was adequate to make a disability determination. See Martise v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 909, 926-27 (8th Cir. 2011) (ALJ is required to order further medical examinations only if existing medical record does not provide sufficient evidence to determine whether claimant is disabled). The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

2 The Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
SECTION  906  CERTIFICATION


                                                            Exhibit  32.1


CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350
ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002



Certification  of  CEO

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-K  for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I,
Peter  L.  Murdoch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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/  PETER  L.  MURDOCH
                          -------------------------------------------------
                          Peter  L.  Murdoch
                          President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer

                          March 16, 2009


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of  this     written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained  by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or  its  staff  upon  request.

This  certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by  such  Act,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  "Exchange  Act").  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent  that  the  Company  specifically  incorporates  it  by  reference.
1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2120

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Felipe Mendoza, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 23, 2008 Filed: June 19, 2008

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Felipe Mendoza appeals from the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guid elines Manual (U.S.S.G.), which reduced certain base offense levels in U.S.S .G. § 2D1.1(c) depending on the quantity of cocaine base (crack) involved.-2- Mendoza pled guilty to conspiracy to di stribute in excess of five kilograms of powder cocaine. Mendoza was sentenced to 262 months in prison and judgment was entered on September 30,1994. In April 2008 Mendoza filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706. The district court denied the motion and Mendoza appeals. Mendoza’s sentence was driven by the quantity of powder cocaine he conspired to distribute. Amendment 706 wa s enacted by the United States Sentencing Commission to help alleviate the sentencing disparity which adversely affected defendants convicted of cr ack cocaine offenses. SeeU.S.S.G. Supp. to app. C 229-31 (2007). As such, Amendment 706 only affects those defendants whose guideline range was determined based on their involve ment with crack cocaine. Consequently, Mendoza does not qualify for relief under Amendment 706. Accordingly, the district court’s orde r denying relief pursuant to the guideline amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jesus Jose Lacer v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00267-CR

Trial court case number: 44479

Trial court: 33rd District Court of Burnet County

On November 21, 2017, December 19, 2017, and January 8, 2018, the Court issued orders

noting that certain exhibits, marked by the official court reporter as follows, were not included as 

part of the reporter’s record forwarded to this Court on appeal.

1. Defendant’s sealed Exhibit 2 (video recording containing pornographic material);

2. Defendant’s sealed Exhibit 3 (video recording containing pornographic material).

Thus, we ordered the District Clerk of Burnet County to deliver to the Clerk of this Court 

the original above described sealed exhibits.1 See TEX.R. APP. P. 34.5(c), 34.5(f), 34.6(d), 34.6(g). 

The District Clerk of Burnet County was also directed to include a copy of the trial court’s order 

sealing Defendant’s Exhibits 2 and 3. In our January 8, 2018 order, we requested that the District 

Clerk of Burnet County, if she could not file the sealed exhibits within the required time period, to 

file an information sheet or certified statement informing the Court of the status of the exhibits. 

We received no response.

Accordingly, we again ORDER the District Clerk of Burnet County to deliver to the Clerk 

of this Court the original above described sealed exhibits. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c), 34.5(f), 

34.6(d), 34.6(g). The District Clerk of Burnet County should also include a copy of the trial court’s 

order sealing Defendant’s Exhibits 2 and 3.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe the original sealed

exhibits; to deliver them to the justices of this Court for their inspection; and, upon completion of 

 

1 On December 19, 2017, the court reporter notified this Court that after trial, she filed the above 

described sealed exhibits with the District Clerk of Burnet County and she does not have access to 

them.
inspection, to return the originals of the above described sealed exhibits to the District Clerk of 

Burnet County.

The sealed exhibits shall be filed in the First Court of Appeals within 5 days of the date 

of this order. If the District Clerk of Burnet County is unable to file the sealed exhibits within 5 

days, she is directed to file an information sheet or certified statement informing the Court of the 

status of the exhibits within 5 days of the date of this order.

If the District Clerk of Burnet County does not file the sealed exhibits or notify the Court 

of the status of the exhibits as directed, the Court may abate this case and remand to the trial court 

to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the above described sealed 

exhibits.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 30, 2018
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2344

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat payments under

the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from real estate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 4, 2000

Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. KERREY, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. DORGAN, Mr.

CONRAD, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BOND, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. BUNNING, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat payments under the Conservation Reserve Program as rentals from real estate.

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 ‘‘Conservation Reserve

5 Program Tax Fairness Act’’.
2

•S 2344 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CONSERVATION RESERVE PRO2 GRAM PAYMENTS AS RENTALS FROM REAL

3 ESTATE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1402(a)(1) of the Internal

5 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining net earnings from self6 employment) is amended by inserting ‘‘and including pay7 ments under section 1233(2) of the Food Security Act of

8 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3833(2))’’ after ‘‘crop shares’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 this section shall apply to payments made before, on, or

11 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Bone Care International, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-23885) on Form S-8 of Bone Care International, Inc. of our report
dated August 6, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Bone
Care International, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 1999, which report
appears in the 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Bone Care International, Inc.

Our report dated August 6, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that Bone Care International, Inc. has suffered recurring losses from operations
that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


Chicago, Illinois
September 7, 2000
----

| Date:  May 1,      2008 | /s/      Richard      A. Hubbell                           |   |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                              | Richard      A. Hubbell                                    |   |
|                              | President      and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
|                              | (Principal      Executive Officer)                         |   |
|                              |                                                       |   |
|                              |                                                       |   |
|                              |                                                       |   |
|                              |                                                       |   |
| Date:  May 1,      2008 | /s/      Ben      M. Palmer                                |   |
|                              | Ben      M. Palmer                                         |   |
|                              | Vice      President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                              | (Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer)          |
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1720 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1720

   For the relief of Mrs. Ruth Hairston of Carson, California by the 
 waiver of a filing deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her 
                  application for a survivor annuity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 13, 1999

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   For the relief of Mrs. Ruth Hairston of Carson, California by the 
 waiver of a filing deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her 
                  application for a survivor annuity.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF DEADLINE FOR APPEAL.

    For purposes of a petition by Mrs. Ruth Hairston of Carson, 
California, for review of the final order issued October 31, 1995, by 
the Merit Systems Protection Board with respect to docket number SF-
0831-95-0754-I-1, the 30-day filing deadline in section 7703(b)(1) of 
title 5, United States Code, is waived.
                                 <all>
```
**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 B&D Food Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Daniel
      Ollech, 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, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/
                Daniel OllechMay 14,
              2008
            **Daniel
                Ollech**
              **Chief
                Financial Officer**
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 BOWATER INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Bowater Incorporated  Statement of Computation of Unaudited Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  (in millions, except ratio information)
 Six Months Ended June 30,2007
    
    2006Earnings:Income before income taxes, minority interests and
cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    (73.3
    )
    
    $
    13.3Add: Fixed charges from below
    
    
    98.2
    
    
    
    105.0Less: Capitalized interest
    
    
    (0.2
    )
    
    
    (2.8
    )$
    24.7
    
    
    $
    115.5Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net of interest capitalized
    
    
    94.6
    
    
    
    98.7Capitalized interest
    
    
    0.2
    
    
    
    2.8Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.6Amortized premium and discounts related to indebtedness
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    1.9Interest expense on FIN 48 accrual, included in tax provision
    
    
    0.1
    
    
    
    $
    98.2
    
    
    $
    105.0Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.1xDeficiency of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    $
    (73.5
    )
    
    $
    
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1995
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-1995
[CASH]                                             404
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                     1129
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                  1377
[PP&E]                                           78459
[DEPRECIATION]                                   22272
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                   66782
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                             1282
[BONDS]                                          61792
[COMMON]                                          4011
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[OTHER-SE]                                     (12421)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                     66782
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                  3973
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                     2496
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                  1826
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                 (1762)
[INCOME-TAX]                                       364
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                             (1398)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                    (1398)
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                   (0.34)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (0.34)
</TABLE>
(May 13, 1925.)

#### KOOTENAI POWER COMPANY, LTD., a Corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF IDAHO and THE CITY OF COEUR D’ALENE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondents.

[236 Pac. 735.]

Public Utilities Commission — Order—Rehearing—Appeal.

MOTION to dismiss appeal from order of Public Utilities Commission.

*Denied.*

Robert H. Elder, for Appellant.

A. H. Conner, Attorney General, James L. Boone, Assistant Attorney General, and Chas. P. McCarthy, for Respondents.

WM. E. LEE, J.

This cause was submitted on the argument made in *Consumers’ Company, Ltd., v. Public Utilities Commission, ante,*p. 772, 236 Pac. 732. In so far as the motion to dismiss the appeal is concerned the two causes are so similar as not to require a separate opinion in this cause. On the authority of the Consumers’ Company case, *ante,*p. 772, 236 Pac. 732, the motion is denied.

Budge and Givens, JJ., concur.

Taylor, J., dissents.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000118

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

THOMAS MOORE; KATHRYN "JO" MOORE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

ROBERT ESTABROOK, Defendant-Appellant, and

MELISSA RAVELO, Defendant-Appellee, and

JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PUNA DIVISION

(CASE NO. 3DRC-22-0001697)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Upon consideration of self-represented DefendantAppellant Robert Estabrook's May 25, 2024 motion for

reconsideration of the November 13, 2023 Order Dismissing Appeal,

the papers in support, and the record, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied. Rule

40(a), Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 4, 2024.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-23-0000118

04-JUN-2024

08:05 AM

Dkt. 25 ODMR
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                         986,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  493,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                    423,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,521,520
<PP&E>                                      21,748,741
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,450,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,508,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,545,002
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,327
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,687,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,508,138
<SALES>                                     34,301,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,469,939
<CGS>                                        8,892,889
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,634,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             451,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,665,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                   650,398
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,014,801
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,014,801
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>