alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michelle STEUBE, f/k/a Michelle Schaaf, Appellant, v. Frank SCHAAF, Respondent.

No. 68745.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 17, 1996.

Richard B. Dempsey, Richard B. Dempsey, Jr., Washington, for appellant.

Mark S. Vincent, Union, for respondent.

GARY M. GAERTNER, Judge.

Appellant, Michelle Steube (“mother”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Franklin County granting respondent’s, Frank Schaafs (“father”), motion to modify a prior decree of dissolution with respect to the custody of the parties’ minor child. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case has a long and bitter history which need not be detailed in full. This appeal arises out of father’s motions to modify and to cite mother for contempt, initially filed on February 2, 1993. After numerous continuances, due in large part to mother’s refusal to pay a court ordered guardian ad litem fee, the motions were finally heard on June 13,1995.1

The court entered detailed findings and conclusions granting father’s motion to modify and took his motion to cite for contempt under advisement. Mother appeals the trial court’s order granting father’s motion to *900modify transferring primary physical custody of minor child to him.

The judgment of the trial court must be final before jurisdiction will vest in this court. *Reid v. Reid,*879 S.W.2d 796, 797 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). Although not argued by the parties, we have a duty to raise the issue of appellate jurisdiction *sua sponte. Id.*In order to be a final judgment, the trial court’s decree must dispose of all issues raised by the parties and leave nothing for future determination. *Id.*Here, the trial court’s order, while carefully and thoroughly addressing the issue of custody, specifically stated father’s motion for contempt had been taken “under advisement.” The order might still have been appealable despite not having disposed of the contempt issue if the trial court had found “no just reason for delay” of an appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b). However, no such finding appears in the record. Therefore, as this court lacks jurisdiction, mother’s appeal is dismissed. *See Reed v. Reed,*803 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo.App. S.D. 1991); *Shoots v. Thomas,*706 S.W.2d 552, 553-54 (Mo.App. W.D.1986); *In re Marriage of Roeder,*557 S.W.2d 482, 483 (Mo.App. Spfld.D.1977).

DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

1

. The trial court had appointed a GAL in 1992 upon mother's allegations of child abuse. These allegations proved to be baseless, and mother’s refusal to pay the fee was thought to be a delay-mg tactic. Consequently, on May 30, 1995, the trial court granted father's motion to strike mother’s pleadings, including her response to father's pending motions.
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CORPORATE EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chen Feng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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/ Chen Feng Chen Feng Chief Financial Officer May 19, 2009 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1


         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CEO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     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 Insynq, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Gorst, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 as of May 31, 2005 and for the periods then ended

                                            /s/ John P. Gorst
                                            -----------------------
                                            John P. Gorst
                                            Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3834 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3834

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois, as the 
                  ``Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3834

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To redesignate the Dunning Post Office in Chicago, Illinois, as the 
                  ``Roger P. McAuliffe Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Dunning Post Office, located at 6441 West Irving Park Road, 
Chicago, Illinois, shall be redesignated and known as the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office referred 
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Roger P. 
McAuliffe Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 PharMerica Corporation (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Culotta, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Corporation.



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL J. CULOTTA                                                             
|Michael J. Culotta
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 5, 2010
Exhibit X

Under Seal

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1411-5 Filed 12/01/21 Page 1 of 1
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 775 

Expressing appreciation to Portugal for accepting two detainees released 

from Guantanamo Bay prison. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. WEXLER, 

and Mr. DELAHUNT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing appreciation to Portugal for accepting two 

detainees released from Guantanamo Bay prison. 

Whereas President Barack Obama has vowed to close the 

prison at Guantanamo Bay in January 2010, necessitating the release or transfer of about 225 persons detained at the facility; 

Whereas at least 50 detainees have thus far been cleared for 

release; 

Whereas since President Obama took office, about 15 detainees have left Guantanamo and were resettled in Britain, 

France, Bermuda, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Portugal, and 1 detainee was transferred to the 

State of New York for a Federal trial; 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 775 IH 

Whereas there has been significant opposition in Congress 

and the wider public to settling detainees into the United 

States or transferring detainees to prisons in the United 

States; 

Whereas the United States, must ensure, in compliance with 

international humans rights law, including the Convention Against Torture, that detainees will not be transferred to nations where their safety will be jeopardized; 

Whereas in December 2008, Portuguese Foreign Minister 

Luis Amado announced in a public letter to European 

Union officials that Portugal was ready to help the 

United States resettle released detainees; 

Whereas Portugal became the first country to publicly state 

its willingness to take Guantanamo detainees other than 

their own residents or nationals; 

Whereas in late August 2009, Portugal accepted the transfer 

of 2 Syrian detainees who had been cleared for release 

by the United States Government; and 

Whereas according to Portuguese Government officials, the 

two men are not subject to any charge, and have been 

provided homes by the country to live freely: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses its appreciation to Portugal for 

3 accepting 2 men released from the prison at Guanta4 namo Bay; 

5 (2) encourages Portugal to ensure that the two 

6 former detainees are able to participate as fully as 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 775 IH 

1 possible in their local community and in Portuguese 

2 society; and 

3 (3) heralds the Portuguese Government for 

4 safely, humanely, and effectively resettling detainees 

5 from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have been 

6 cleared of wrongdoing. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.52 Page 1 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.53 Page 2 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.54 Page 3 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.55 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.56 Page 5 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.57 Page 6 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.58 Page 7 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.59 Page 8 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.60 Page 9 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.61 Page 10 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.62 Page 11 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.63 Page 12 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.64 Page 13 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.65 Page 14 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.66 Page 15 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.67 Page 16 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.68 Page 17 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.69 Page 18 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.70 Page 19 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.71 Page 20 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.72 Page 21 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.73 Page 22 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.74 Page 23 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.75 Page 24 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.76 Page 25 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.77 Page 26 of 27
Case 2:09-cv-10772-GCS-VMM ECF No. 12 filed 05/22/09 PageID.78 Page 27 of 27
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-3576

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Anthony Davis, also known as Anthony Dawayne Randolph, also known as 

Anthony Latice Randolph, also known as John Duke

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: March 9, 2023

Filed: March 14, 2023

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
-2- 

Anthony Davis appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court1

imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, this court affirms.

Davis’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief under 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not impose a 

substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-

18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed 

under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 

455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a 

district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines 

range--as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the district court 

adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Larison, 

432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if court 

fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant 

factor, or commits clear error of judgment). Additionally, the revocation sentence 

was within the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum 

revocation prison term is 5 years if underlying offense is Class A felony), (b)(1) 

(statutory maximum supervised release term for Class A offense of conviction is 5 

years), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized 

by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms).

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

 1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3868 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 556
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3868

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
                      through September 30, 1996.

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

SECTION 1. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended--
            (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
        follows:

                   ``authorization of appropriations

    ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
1996 such sums as may be necessary to implement this part.'';
            (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996'';
            (3) by adding at the end of section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 
        6276(h)) ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
        year 1996 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
        part.''; and
            (4) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``June 30, 
        1996'' both places it appears and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``September 30, 1996''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 556

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3868

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
                      through September 30, 1996.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 31, 1996

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
Order entered July 26 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00224 - CV CHRISTINE FLORES DES IO D/B/A PROFESSIONA L CENTER OF GRAND PR AIRIE AND FRANCIS ANTHONY DESIO, JR. A/K/A FRANK DES IO, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant s V. MIKE DEL BOSQUE D/B/ A INJURY AND REHAB C ENTER IN GRAND PRAIR IE, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 17 - 04408



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s July 23, 2019 motion for leave to file a sur

- reply brief with the sur

- reply brief attached as an exhibit to the motion. We GRANT the motion . Appellee shall separately file the sur

- reply brief within ten days of the date of this order.
/s/ R OBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

            We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement on Forms S-8 of Linkwell Corporation and the related
prospectuses of our audit report dated March 25, 2006 except as to Note 1 - and
the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 1 as to which the date is May
10, 2006, Restatements which is dated with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet at December 31, 2005 and the consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows of Linkwell Corporation and its subsidiaries
for the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004 in the Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Sherb & Co., LLP
Certified Public Accountants


Boca Raton, Florida
May 12, 2006