alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Byron BARBER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 65852.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 10, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John R. Watson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*767Before GRIMM, C.J., REINHARD, P.J., and CRAHAN, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
---

Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Net 1 UEPS
Technologies, Inc.s Post Effective Amendment No 1. to the Registration
Statement on Form S-3, No. 333-163000 and the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (No. 333-126958 and No.333-140042) of our reports relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. and the
effectiveness of Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.s internal control over financial
reporting dated August 26, 2010 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2010.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche (South Africa)

Per PJ Smit Partner August 26, 2010

National Executive: GG Gelink Chief Executive AE Swiegers Chief
Operating Officer GM Pinnock Audit DL Kennedy Tax & Legal and Risk Advisory
L Geeringh Consulting L Bam Corporate Finance CR Beukman Finance TJ Brown
Clients & Markets NT Mtoba Chairman of the Board MJ Comber Deputy Chairman
of the Board

A full list of partners and directors is available on
request

---
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Leevert AIKENS, Defendant/Appellant. Leevert AIKENS, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 63268, 64560.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 17, 1994.

William Gavras, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Hatfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiffirespondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions, by a jury, for delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo Supp.1993, and possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender to concurrent ten year prison terms. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; no error of law appears and the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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

 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Fernando Gastelum, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kang Mesa Estates LLC, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. CV 18-00551-PHX-JAT 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE 

 

 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties (Doc. 20) and good cause appearing: 

IT IS ORDERED dismissing the above-entitled cause of action with respect to all 

claims against all parties, with prejudice, each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and 

costs. 

Dated this 28th day of June, 2018. 

Case 2:18-cv-00551-JAT Document 21 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 1
1 P ursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion

s hould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 97-60225

Summary Calendar

________________________

JODY DERAMUS, Individually and as

Administratrix of the Estate of

John Doe (Frank Deramus),

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(3:92-CV-225WS)

___________________________________________________________________ January 9, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, AND PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

On March 19, 1992, the appellant, Jody Deramus, individually

and as the administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband,

Frank Deramus, filed suit against the appellee, Jackson National

Life Insurance Company (“JNL”), in Mi ssissippi state court,

alleging that JNL was negligent in not disclosing that it had

discovered, during its considerat ion of a life insurance

application by Mr. Deramus, that Mr. Demarus was infected with HIV.

On April 17, 1992, JNL timely removed the action to federal court- 2 -

based on diversity of citizenship. On September 29, 1995, after

nearly three and one-half years of pre-trial proceedings, the

district court granted JNL’s motion to dismiss and/or for summary

jud gment, finding that, under the factual circumstances of the

case, JNL did not have a duty to disclose to either Mr. or Mrs.

Deramus that it had discovered that Mr. Deramus was infected with

HIV. On appeal, this court affirmed, adopting the memorandum

opinion of the district court, and taxed costs against the

appellant in the amount of $184.25. D eramus v. Jackson Nat’l Life

Ins. Co.

, 92 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied

, 117 S. Ct. 956

(1997).

Upon completion of the first appeal, the district court held

a hearing on the appellant’s objections to JNL’s bill of costs. By

Order dated March 10, 1997, the district court awarded JNL costs in

the amount of $2,592.64. In this appeal, the appellant argues that

the district court erred in awarding JNL the following costs: (1)

$75.00 for the cost of obtaining a legible transcription of the

decedent’s medical records; (2) $1,621.60 for deposition

transcripts; (3) $366.54 for copies of medical and tax records; and

(4) $85.50 for “additional” copies of JNL’s pleadings.

After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’

arguments on appeal, we are unable to find that the district court

abused its discretion in awarding JNL the above costs. S ee

Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kell strom , 50 F.3d 319, 334 (5th2 In addition, the appellant’s motion to strike brief for appellee is

DENIED.

- 3 - Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 2
EXHIBIT B 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-3 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 3
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Defendant

ARREST WARRANT

To: Any authorized law enforcement officer

,

u Indictment u Superseding Indictment u Information u Superseding Information u Complaint

u Probation Violation Petition u Supervised Release Violation Petition uViolation Notice u Order of the Court

This offense is briefly described as follows:

Date:

Issuing officer’s signature

City and state:

Printed name and title

Return

This warrant was received on (date) , and the person was arrested on (date)

at (city and state) .

Date:

Arresting officer’s signature

Printed name and title

 District of Arizona

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

v.

Wyo Tech Investment Group, et al.

2:17-CV-04140-DWL

YOU ARE COMMANDED to arrest and bring before a United States magistrate judge without unnecessary delay

(name of person to be arrested) Charles J. Davis

who is accused of an offense or violation based on the following document filed with the court:

✔

Failure to obey this Court's June 27, 2019 contempt order.

Phoenix, Arizona Dominic W. Lanza, United States District Judge

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-3 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 3
AO 442 (Rev. 11/11) Arrest Warrant (Page 2)

This second page contains personal identifiers provided for law-enforcement use only

and therefore should not be filed in court with the executed warrant unless under seal.

(Not for Public Disclosure)

Name of defendant/offender:

Known aliases:

Last known residence:

Prior addresses to which defendant/offender may still have ties:

Last known employment:

Last known telephone numbers:

Place of birth:

Date of birth:

Social Security number:

Height: Weight:

Sex: Race:

Hair: Eyes:

Scars, tattoos, other distinguishing marks:

History of violence, weapons, drug use:

Known family, friends, and other associates (name, relation, address, phone number):

FBI number:

Complete description of auto:

Investigative agency and address:

Name and telephone numbers (office and cell) of pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Date of last contact with pretrial services or probation officer (if applicable):

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 183-3 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





The
      certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule
      15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section 1350 of
      Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Bartly J. Loethen, the Chief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
      of
      Rohat Resources, Inc. hereby certifies that:





1.
      our
      Quarterly Report on amended Form 10-Q 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 our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Rohat Resources, Inc.






Sincerely,


/s/
              Delara
              Hussaini
            
            
            Dated:
              March 28,
              2008By:
                Delara Hussaini,
              Chief
                Executive Officer,
              President,
                Treasurer, Chief
              Financial
                Officer and Principal
              Accounting
                Officer
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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Denna Bland,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-18-00436-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ 

Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 17). Plaintiff is seeking 

$6,511.68 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The parties stipulate the 

requested award “represents reasonable compensation for all legal services rendered on 

behalf of Plaintiff’s attorney in connection with this civil action before the district court in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 2412(d).” (Id. at 1-2). 

In any action brought by or against the United States except one sounding in tort, 

the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other 

than the United States fees and other expenses . . . unless the court finds that the position 

of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Tobeler v. 

Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the EAJA, “attorneys’ fees are to be 

awarded to a party winning a . . . remand unless the Commissioner shows that his position 

with respect to the issue on which the district court based its remand was “substantially 

justified.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Flores v. 
- 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 

Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568-69 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-

98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by the Court belong to Plaintiff and are subject to offset 

under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B)). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees 

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 17) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded 

$6,511.68 in attorneys’ fees. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff’s 

counsel, Stephanie Lake, Esq.; Law Offices of Stephanie Lake, P.C.; 3737 North Seventh 

Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85014. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Court’s EAJA fee order, 

the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of the Court’s EAJA fee order that (1) 

Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 

and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b), 

the fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed 

under the Treasury Offset Program, the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by 

check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney. 

 Dated this 25th day of April, 2019. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge
#### Tyrone PARKER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 19597.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Dec. 6, 1994.

Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PARRISH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying a Rule 24.035 motion. Tyrone Parker (mov-ant) pleaded guilty in the underlying criminal case to second degree murder, § *565.021*
      *1*
      *,*robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for second degree murder, imprisonment for 15 years for robbery in the first degree and imprisonment for 3 years for armed criminal action. The life sentence and the 15-year sentence were ordered served concurrently. The 3-year sentence was ordered served consecutive to the murder sentence.

Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 24.035, in the Circuit Court of Scott County, Missouri. He contended his pleas of guilty were involuntary because he was mentally impaired when he pleaded guilty due to use of prescription medications, and because the pleas of guilty *731were induced by threats that unless he pleaded guilty he would receive the death penalty.2 Movant also claimed he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case.

The motion court denied movant’s Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing. Its findings included that movant’s claim of mental impairment at the time he pleaded guilty and his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel were refuted by the record in the guilty plea hearing in movant’s criminal case.

Movant contends on appeal that the motion court’s findings with respect to his claims of mental impairment and ineffective assistance of counsel are erroneous; that they are not refuted by the record from his guilty plea hearing.

Appellate review of an order denying a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. *Slaughter v. State,*785 S.W.2d 113, 114 (Mo.App.1990); Rule 24.085(j).

The judgment of the motion court is not based on findings that are clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. Further opinion would have no precedential value. The order dismissing movant’s Rule 24.035 motion is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

PREWITT and CROW, JJ., concur.

. References to statutes are to RSMo 1986 unless stated otherwise.

. Movant was originally charged with murder in the first degree. *See*§ 565.020, RSMo Supp. 1990. That charge was amended to murder in the second degree in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement. Movant was also originally charged with two counts of armed criminal action. One count of armed criminal action was dismissed pursuant to the terms of the negotiated plea agreement.
- 1 -

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

David A. Chami, Esq. AZ #027585

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

8245 N. 85th Way

Scottsdale, AZ 85258

P: 818-600-5515

F: 818-600-5415

E: david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Mohammed S. Patwary

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mohammed S. Patwary, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. f/k/a Gurstel 

Chargo, P.A. 

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00953-DGC

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, Mohammed S. Patwary, by and through 

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby 

voluntarily dismisses the action against Defendant, Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. f/k/a Gurstel 

Chargo, P.A. with prejudice.

The Defendant filed neither an answer to the complaint nor a motion for summary 

judgment; dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is therefore appropriate.

Respectfully submitted this 6

th day of June 2018.

Case 2:18-cv-00953-DGC Document 10 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

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

PRICE LAW GROUP, APC

By: /s/David A. Chami ’ 

David A. Chami, Esq. AZ #027585

P: 818-600-5515

E: david@pricelawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Mohammed S. Patwary

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 6, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to all 

attorneys of record in this matter. Since none of the attorneys of record are non-ECF 

participants, hard copies of the foregoing have not been provided via personal delivery or 

by postal mail.

/s/ Elizabeth Nanez 

Case 2:18-cv-00953-DGC Document 10 Filed 06/06/18 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30636-30637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15337]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Proposal To Award Concession Permits; Public Notice

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given that the National Park Service 
proposes to award twenty-one (21) concession permtis authorizing 
continued operation of canoe rental, shuttle and related services for 
the public at Buffalo National River for a period of five (5) years 
from November 1, 1996, through October 31, 2001.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 16, 1996.

ADDRESS: Interested parties should contact the Superintendent, Buffalo 
National River, P.O. Box 1173, Harrison, Arkansas 72602-1173, to obtain 
a copy of the prospectus describing the requirements of the proposed 
permits.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This permit renewal has been determined to 
be categorically excluded from the procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act and no environmental document will be 
prepared.
    The existing concessionaires have performed their obligations to 
the satisfaction of the Secretary under existing permits which expire 
by limitation of time on October 31, 1996, and therefore pursuant to 
the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 
969; 16 U.S.C. 20), each existing concessioner is entitled to be given 
preference in the renewal of the permit and in the negotiation of a new 
permit, providing that the existing concessioner submits a responsive 
offer (a timely offer which meets the terms and conditions of the 
Prospectus). This means that the permit will be awarded to the party 
submitting the best offer,

[[Page 30637]]

provided that if the best offer was not submitted by the existing 
concessioner, then the existing concessioner will be afforded the 
opportunity to match the best offer. If the existing concessioner 
agrees to match the best offer, then the permit will be awarded to the 
existing concessioner.
    If any of the existing concessionaires does not submit a responsive 
offer, the right of preference in renewal shall be considered to have 
been waived, and the permit will then be awarded to the party that has 
submitted the best responsive offer.
    The Secretary will consider and evaluate all proposals received as 
a result of this notice. Any proposal, including that of the existing 
concessioner, must be received by the Superintendent, not later than 
the sixtieth (60th) day following publication of this notice to be 
considered and evaluated.

    Dated: May 14, 1996.
David N. Given,
Acting Field Director, Midwest Field Area.
[FR Doc. 96-15337 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John Boschert, the Chief Executive Officer of Caleco Pharma
Corp. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                       

By:              /s/
John
Boschert

Name:         JOHN
BOSCHERT

Title:          
Chief Executive Officer

Date:          
September 20,
2010

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---