alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40924

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARLAND WAYNE SAVAGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-95-CR-180-2

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garland Wayne Savage appeals from the judgment revoking his

probation and imposing a term of imprisonment to be followed by a

term of supervised release. Savage contends that the district

court impermissibly delegated to the probation officer the

authority to determine his ability to pay the costs of drug or

alcohol detection and treatment. The special condition in

Savage’s case “did not include an unlawful delegation of
No. 01-40924

-2-

authority to the probation officer.” United States v. Warden,

291 F.3d 363, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11999]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice No. 2381]


Shipping Coordinating Committee Council and Associated Bodies; 
Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 10:00 a.m on Tuesday, June 11, 1996, in Room 6103, at U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20593-0001. The purpose of the meeting is to finalize preparations for 
the 76th session of the Council and the 42nd Session of the Technical 
Cooperation Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), 
which is scheduled for June 17-21, 1996, at IMO Headquarters in London. 
At the meeting, discussions will focus on papers received and draft 
U.S. positions. Among other things, the items of particular interest 
are:
    a. Reports of the IMO committees.
    b. Review of the IMO technical cooperation activities.
    c. Relations with the United Nations.
    d. Reports for World Maritime University and International Maritime 
Law Institute.
    e. Work program and budget for 1996-1997.
    f. Administrative and financial matters.
    Members of the public may attend the meeting up to the capacity of 
the room. Interested persons may seek information by writing: Mr. Gene 
F. Hammel, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (G-CI), 2100 Second Street, 
SW., Room 2114, Washington, DC 20593-0001, by calling: (202) 267-2280, 
or by faxing: (202) 267-4588.

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
Charles A. Mast,
Chairman, Shipping Coordinating Committee.
[FR Doc. 96-11999 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-70-M
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Craig Anthony Talieje, 

Defendant.

No. 17-04345-01-PCT-DMF

ORDER 

 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived, and the detention hearing was submitted on the record including a 

proffer by defense counsel. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant 

violated the terms of his supervised release as alleged in the petition. The Court further 

finds, pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that defendant has failed to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised release. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as a flight risk and a 

danger, pending further revocation proceedings. 

// 

// 

// 

/ 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Dated this 19th day of February, 2019.
----

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the quarterly report of Fortified  Holdings Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the  date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Alan Hurwitz, Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that:

| 1.     | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly        Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition        and results of operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered        by the Quarterly Report. |

Date: November 19, 2007

| By:   | */s/ Alan Hurwitz*      |   |
|------------|-------------------------|--------|
|       | Alan Hurwitz            |   |
|       | Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 26517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13234]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice of the filing 
of the following agreement(s) pursuant to section 5 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984.
    Interested parties may inspect and obtain a copy of each agreement 
at the Washington, D.C. Office of the Federal Maritime Commission, 800 
North Capitol Street, N.W., 9th Floor. Interested parties may submit 
comments on each agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573, within 10 days after the date of 
the Federal Register in which this notice appears. The requirements for 
comments are found in section 572.603 of Title 46 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations. Interested persons should consult this section 
before communicating with the Commission regarding a pending agreement.
    Agreement No.: 232-011417-001.
    Title: Thompson/CIS Agreement.
    Parties: Thompson Shipping Co., Ltd. (``Thompson''), Cayman Island 
Shipping, Ltd.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment substitutes Tropical Shipping and 
Construction Co., Ltd. for Thompson by acquiring certain assets of 
Thompson that are utilized in the U.S. foreign commerce. It also 
changes the name of the Agreement from Thompson/CIS Agreement to 
Tropical/CIS Agreement. The parties have requested a shortened review 
period.

    Dated: May 21, 1996.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13234 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7927

MALCOLM OMAWALE ABDULLAH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL B. MOORE; OMAR SHAHEED; WILLIAM D.

CATOE; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY; TOM SMITH,

Detective,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-1028-10-21BD)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 18, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Omawale Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Larry Cleveland Batson,

Robert Eric Petersen, William Ansel Collins, Jr., Byron Ronald

Roberts, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's

recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Abdullah v. Moore, No. CA96-1028-10-21BD (D.S.C. Nov. 27, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2053

FITISTICS, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

and

SEAN MCKIRDY, 

Defendant - Appellee,

v.

ERIK B. CHERDAK,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-1732

FITISTICS, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

and

SEAN MCKIRDY, 

Defendant - Appellee,

v.

ERIK B. CHERDAK,
2

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00112-LO-JFA; 1:17-cv-00500-LOIDD)

Submitted: September 27, 2019 Decided: November 20, 2019

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erik B. Cherdak, Appellant Pro Se. John Daniel Victor Ferman, BANKS & 

ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Erik B. Cherdak appeals the district court’s judgment entered after a bench trial as 

well as several orders disposing of the parties’ postjudgment motions. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Fitistics, LLC, v. Cherdak, Nos. 1:16-cv-00112-LO-JFA; 1:17-cv-00500-

LO-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2018 & June 10, 2019). We deny the motion to supplement 

the record on appeal. We deny Fitistics’ and McKirdy’s motion for sanctions, but caution 

Cherdak that continued pursuit of vexatious litigation tactics and the filing of frivolous 

appeals may result in sanctions in future cases. We deny Cherdak’s motion for oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EAIXOIZNEY GENERAL 

OF =XAS 

PRICE DANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

AuwrIN If. -rExAs 

May 12, 1947 

Hon. J* M. Williams 

County Auditor 

Tarrant County 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Opinion No. V-196’ 

Re; Eligibility of a grand 

jury bailiff for inc,reased compensation 

under subdivision 9 of 

Article 3902, V.C.S. 

~Dear Sir: 

We refer to yeur lett%,r of April 24, 1,947, inwhich you submit the following fnquiry: 

““Is a grand jury bailiff either deputy, assistant or 

clerk to any district, county or precinct officer, so that 

subdivision 9 of Article 3902,, Revised Civil Statutes, 

would authorize the Commissioners’ Court to increase 

the salary of a grand jury bailiff, should they see fit to 

do so, as much as 25%) or any per cent? ” 

Article 3962 of Vernon”s Civil Statutes pertains to the appointment and compensation of deputies, assistants and clerks, 

and provides: 

‘“Whenever any district, county or precinct officer 

shall require the services of deputies, assistants or clerks 

in the performance of his duties, he shall apply to the Commissioners* Court of his county for authority to appoint such 

deputies, assistants or clerks, stating in the application the 

number needed, the position to, be filled and the amount to be 

paid.” 0 a s 

Subdivision 9 of that Article was sdded by Acts 1945, 49th 

Legislature, page 244, Chapter 179, Section 2, as follows: 

““9. The Commiss,ioners’ Court is hereby authorized, 

when in their judgment tbe financial condition of the county 

and the needs of the deputies, assistants and clerks of any 

district, county or precinct officer justify the increase, to 

enter an order increasing the compensation of such deputy, 

assistant or clerk in an additional amount not to exceed 

twenty-five (25%) per cent of the sum allowed under the 

law for the fiscal year, 1944, provided the total compensation authprized under the law for the fiscal year Qf 1944 
Hon. J. M, Williams - Page 2, V-196 

did not exceed thirty-six hundred ($3600.00) dollars,“’ 

We are of the opinion that a grand jury bailiff is not 

a deputy, assistant or clerk of any district, county or precinct 

officer within the meaning of Article 3902 of Vernon’s Civil 

Statutes. The compensation of such a bailiff is fixed by Article 1058 of Vernon’s Code of Criminal Procedure, and sa<d 

Article was not amended or repealed by subdivision 9 of Article 3902. 

Consequently we answer that a Commissioners” Court 

is not authorized to increase the salary of a grand jury bailiff. 

SUMMARY 

A grand jury bailiff is not a deputy, assistant, or 

clerk of any district, county, or precinct officer, and 

the Commissioners’ Court is not authorized to increase 

the compensation of such an officer under the provisions 

of subdivision 9 of Article 3902, V.C.S. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS 

WTW:et W. T. Williams 

Assistant 

Az.lE2.A 

ATTORNEYGENERAL
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH I FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH I Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
R. Sprouls 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: November 7, 2008



By:

/s/ John R. SproulsJohn R. SproulsPresident (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Mary Jane Matthews HAPPY, Respondent, v. Jack Nelson HAPPY, Appellant.

No. WD 50059.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 18, 1995.

*610Keith A. Wenzel, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Renee T. Duffield, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

BERREY, Judge.

Jack Happy appeals the decision of the circuit court entered on May 16,1994, finding him in contempt of court.

Happy has not complied with the court order to pay Mary Jane Happy back maintenance in the sum of $18,973.80 plus interest at the rate of *1%*per month pursuant to § 454.520, RSMo.1986, within thirty days of the date of the order.

Following a hearing wherein the trial court heard oral arguments of counsel, and after having read all briefs submitted, the trial court entered its order. In part the order read as follows:

> .... [t]his Court finds Respondent to be in contempt of court and orders him to pay petitioner the below stated amount within thirty days from the date of this order or be subject to confinement in the Cole County jail until such time as Petitioner is paid.

To date, Jack Happy has not purged himself of contempt by paying the amount ordered nor has he been arrested, confined, or posted bond. Until one or the other of these contingencies occur, purging the contempt or incarceration to coerce payment, the order is interlocutory and not appealable.

There must be a final judgment or order before an appeal will lie, § 512.020, RSMo.1978. A civil contempt order is not a final judgment until it is enforced. *Smith v. Smith,*676 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.1984).

If the contemnor purges himself of contempt by complying with the court’s order, the issue becomes moot and unappealable. If, however, he elects to appeal, he must wait until the court’s order is enforced and he is actually incarcerated pursuant to a warrant of commitment. *Niehoff v. Forney,*692 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Mo.App.1985).

Should he be so incarcerated, he is entitled to be released on bail pending his appeal. *Hamilton v. Hamilton,*661 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.1983).

While we would like to address the merits in an effort to nip future litigation in the bud, we cannot. Inasmuch as the contempt order has not been enforced, the appeal is dismissed as premature.

All concur.
#### PHOENIX FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ann C. LAMBERT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. WD 41939.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 24, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 29, 1990.

Greg T. Spies, Watson, Ess, Marshall *&*Enggas, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.

G. Edwin Proctor, Jr., Heavner, Jarrett & Kimball, Kansas City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and ' SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment for balance due, interest, and attorney fees on note.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4614 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EUGENE DWIGHT HUNT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-04-414)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B.

Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Dwight Hunt pled guilty, pursuant to a written

plea agreement, to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and was sentenced to a

fifteen-year minimum sentence because he was found to be an armed

career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (West Supp. 2005). On

appeal, Hunt argues that the district court erred by sentencing him

as an armed career criminal in violation of United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because this judicially-imposed

sentencing enhancement was neither found by a jury nor admitted by

him. We affirm.

Hunt’s argument is foreclosed by two of our recent

decisions. See United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 282-84

(4th Cir.) (holding that district court may enhance sentence based

on fact of prior convictions under § 924(e) regardless of whether

admitted by defendant or found by jury), petition for cert. filed

(Oct. 25, 2005) (No. 05-7266); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d

349, 352-53 (4th Cir.) (holding that the armed career criminal

designation, based on prior convictions, does not violate the Sixth

Amendment under Booker), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm Hunt’s sentence. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:17-mj-07544-BSB Document 1 Filed 11/04/17 Page 6 of 6
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5880 

To provide that reimbursement of Members of Congress by the House of 

Representatives for expenses incurred in connection with official duties 

are not subject to tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 3, 2023 

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide that reimbursement of Members of Congress by 

the House of Representatives for expenses incurred in 

connection with official duties are not subject to tax. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

4 BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR 

5 EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH 

6 OFFICIAL DUTIES NOT SUBJECT TO TAX. 

7 For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

8 gross income shall not include amounts received after De9 cember 31, 2022, by a Member of Congress (including a 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5880 IH

1 Delegate or Resident Commissioner) as a reimbursement 

2 for expenses of such Member which are incurred in con3 nection with the official duties of such Member if such 

4 reimbursement is made from such Member’s Representa5 tional Allowance (MRA) consistent with the Members’ 

6 Congressional Handbook as adopted by the Committee on 

7 House Administration of the House of Representatives. 

8 Any amount excluded from gross income under the pro9 ceeding sentence shall not be taken into account in deter10 mining any deduction or credit under such Code or as 

11 wages for purposes of determining any tax imposed under 

12 subtitle C of such Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20076

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MODESTO CANALES,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-94-0074-01

- - - - - - - - - -

 April 26, 1996

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE', and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Modesto Canales argues that the evidence is insufficient to

support his convictions for making false statements on his income

tax returns for the years 1987-89; that the district court erred

by refusing to require the Government to produce the handwritten

interview notes of an Internal Revenue Service Agent; and that

the district court erroneously increased his Sentencing

Guidelines offense level for obstruction of justice and the use
No. 95-20076

-2-

of his specialized accounting skills in the commission of the offense.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record, and we discern

no reversible error. 

AFFIRMED.