alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jeffrey J.

Keyes, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2867

___________

Burdette Theodore House, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Michael Campion, Commissioner *

of the Minnesota Department of Public *

Safety; Bruce Andersohn; James M. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dudgeon, Jr., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 10, 2010

Filed: March 15, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Burdette House appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint. Having reviewed the record de novo, see Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533

F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review), we conclude that dismissal was

proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of First Fortis Life Insurance
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Larry M. Cains
------------------
Larry M. Cains
Chief Financial Officer
March 27, 2003
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Tarsadeus Tarceyla Fisher, Appellant

No. 06-22-00127-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of 

Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 29423). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Stevens and Justice 

van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Tarsadeus Tarceyla Fisher, has adequately indicated her

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        The FAA plans to auction a lease for a package of slots at Newark Liberty International Airport on September 3, 2008. If you are interested in participating in the auction, commenting on the planned auction procedures or draft lease terms, you will be able to find additional information and procedures for providing comments at                         *http://faaco.faa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Jeffrey Wharff, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;                         *telephone:*                         202 267-3274; His e-mail is                         *Jeffrey.Wharff@FAA.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 2008.

Nan Shellabarger,

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and Environment.

[FR Doc. E8-18356 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Carl Jones v. State.

No. 25,822.

April 16, 1952.

Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) June 4, 1952.

*383Hon. Otis T. Dunagan, Judge Presiding.

*Alex Pope,*Tyler, and *James S. Grisham, Dallas,*for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Indecent fondling of the person of a female minor is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

That appellant fondled the privates of a four-year-old female is shown by the testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses. The facts warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Appellant insists that the so-called fondling statute (Art. 535d, Vernon’s P. C.) is vague and indefinite both as to the offense denounced and the punishment authorized to be assessed thereunder.

We deem the validity of the statute to have been determined by the case of Jones v. State, 156 Tex. Cr. R. 2, 238 S. W. 2d 529.

The statute applies to “any person.” It became unnecessary, therefore, for the state to prove either the sex or the age of the appellant. If appellant was not of sufficient age to authorize his conviction of a felony, he should have so shown.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Gregory L. Paige   
|Gregory L. Paige       
|Chief Executive Officer
|Dated: March 18, 2009  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management
Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-24669, 33-93540, 333-51623, 333-93923, 333-83781, 333-83781-01 and 333-60436
of Summit Properties Inc. on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos.
333-88202, 333-78 and 333-79897 on Form S-8, of our report dated January 23,
2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Summit Properties Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18316]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Notice of Appointment of Individuals To Serve as Members of 
Performance Review Boards

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Appointment of individuals to serve as members of Performance 
Review Board.

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

DATES: Effective: September 26, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri L. Buchholz, Director of Human 
Resources, U.S. International Trade Commission (202) 205-2651.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Chairman of the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has appointed the following individuals to serve on the 
Commission's Performance Review Board (PRB):
    Chairman of PRB--Vice-Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun.
    Chairman of PRB--Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman.
    Member--Robert A. Rogowsky.
    Member--Lyn M. Schlitt.
    Member--Stephen A. McLaughlin.
    Member--Lynn I. Levine.
    Member--Robert G. Carpenter.
    Member--Robert B. Koopman.
    Member--James Lyons.
    Member--Karen Laney-Cummings.
    This notice is published in the Federal Register pursuant to the 
requirement of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). Hearing-impaired individuals are 
advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting 
our TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    Issued: September 26, 2005.

    By order of the Chairman.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18316 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CINCINNATI, Executor, etc.

No. 7858.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 6, 1938.

James W. Morris, Asst Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

William R. Collins, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

*997PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal in this cause be, and the same is, dismissed, pursuant to stipulation of counsel.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Harold TERREL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 51637.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Emmett D. Queener, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaeffer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant sought Rule 24.035 relief contending his pleas of guilty were not voluntary, since success at trial was limited by an ad*596verse ruling on a motion in limine. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### STATE ex rel. NAVO v. BAYNARD, Auditor, et al.

No. 949.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 8, 1932.

Reynolds, Hamiter & Hendrick, of Shreveport, and Chas. A. Holcombe, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Michael M. Irwin, of New Orleans, and George M. Wallace, of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

MOUTON, J.

Plaintiff alleges that January 1, 1931, he received a written commission from the state bureau of criminal identification which expired December 31, 1931, as appears by his commission attached to and made part of his petition.

His salary, he alleges, is fixed at $2,500 per annum, payable on his monthly warrant. He alleges that he received his salary for two months only from the date of the issuance of his commission; that is, .for January and February, 1931.

At a salary of $2,500 per year, his monthly salary amounts to $208.33, as it is by him correctly alleged.

He alleges that he is entitled to this monthly salary from March 1, 1931, until he is dismissed from his office, as provided for in section 10, Act No. 99 of 1928.

He finally prays for a writ of mandamus to compel the state auditor to issue warrants for his salary at the rate of $208.33, per month, from March 1, 1931, “until he is legally removed.”

Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed on an exception of no cause of action, from which he prosecutes this appeal.

■ There is no intimation whatsoever in his petition or in the ease that he has been removed from office. On the contrary, his allegations are to the effect that he has not been removed, and until that event occurs, he al■leges, he is entitled to his monthly warrants of $208.33, from March 1, 1931.

His term of office under his allegations and according to the commission attached to his petition expired December 31, 1931. His claim is therefore for this monthly salary for ten months, 'dating from March 1, 1931, to December 31, 1931.

At $208.33 per month for that period of time, the claim amounts to a total of $2,083.-33. This is necessarily the amount involved in this case, which exceeds our jurisdiction.

It is therefore ordered and decreed that this case be transferred to the Supreme Court iof this state under provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, p. 25 within sixty days from the signing of this judgment.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11351 and #11352]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of California dated 08/04/2008. *Incident:*
                         Severe Thunderstorms causing Flash Flooding and Landslides. *Incident Period:*
                         07/12/2008 through 07/20/2008.
 DATES: *Effective date:*
                         08/04/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/03/2008. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/04/2009.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Inyo. Contiguous Counties: California, Fresno, Kern, Mono, San Bernardino, Tulare. Nevada, Clark, Esmeralda, Nye. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
5.250Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11351 9 and for economic injury is 11352 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California and Nevada. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: August 4, 2008. Jovita Carranza, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. E8-18559 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### NORWALK COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 8468.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 14, 1938.

Weil & Weil, of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion of petitioner, consented to by counsel for respondent,' ordered decision of Board of Tax Appeals herein affirmed, that a judgment be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                                     0000915390
<NAME>                                    Arch Communications Group, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
<CURRENCY>                                USD

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                         Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                  1
<CASH>                                                       3,161
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               61,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                                16,473
<INVENTORY>                                                  9,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            85,303
<PP&E>                                                     714,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                             314,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           1,353,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      164,811
<BONDS>                                                  1,322,508
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      3
<COMMON>                                                       512
<OTHER-SE>                                                (218,074)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             1,353,045
<SALES>                                                     50,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           641,824
<CGS>                                                       34,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               34,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           132,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            15,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         144,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (289,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (289,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              6,963
<CHANGES>                                                   (3,361)
<NET-INCOME>                                              (285,586)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (9.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (9.10)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6854
ROGER MARTIN, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EDWARD MURRAY; 19 JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1082-2) Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We also deny Appellant's motions for an extension of time, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and appointment of counsel. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court assessed afiling fee in accordance with Local Rule 28(C) for the Eastern District of Virginia, and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. * Martin v. Murray , No. CA-95-1082-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Ex Parte Abel Fernandez.

No. 25380.

June 27, 1951.

*Raeburn Norris,*and *Nago L. Alaniz,*Alice, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The writ applied for by relator, who is confined in the state penitentiary, was granted by the Honorable Harry M. Carroll, Judge of the 105th Judicial District of Texas, presiding in the District Court of Kleberg County, Texas, and made returnable to this court, as provided in Article 119, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.

*247On January 17, 1949, in the District Court of Kleberg County, relator waived a jury and pleaded guilty before the Honorable Paul A. Martineau, judge of said court, to the offense of felony theft and his punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary. Time for filing the motion for a new trial being waived, Judge Martineau, on the same day, pronounced sentence and remanded relator to jail.

Thereafter, by order of said judge dated March 28, 1949, the actual commitment on the sentence was withdrawn and relator was placed on probation for a term of two years.

On March 27, 1951, Judge Martineau revoked the probation and ordered relator committed to serve the sentence imposed in Cause No. 1037 “on March 28, 1949.”

The controlling question appears to be whether or not the term of probation had expired prior to such order of revocation.

The only sentence in Cause No. 1037 is that dated and pronounced on January 17, 1949. It was for a term of two years.

Article 781b, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., known as the Adult Probation and Parole Law, provides for the granting of probation either before or after sentence.

After the sentence has been pronounced, Section 1 of Art. 781b, supra, provides that the court may suspend the execution of sentence and place the defendant on probation “for the maximum period of the sentence imposed.”

Elsewhere in Art. 781b, supra, it is provided that the period of probation shall be determined by the court, but we find no provision authorizing its extension beyond the maximum term of the sentence.

It follows, therefore, that the term of probation granted relator expired with the sentence two years after January 17,1949, and the court was without authority to thereafter revoke the probation.

Relator is therefore ordered discharged from further confinement under the sentence in Cause No. 1037 in the district court of Kleberg County.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### Malcolm J. FISCHER v. Roch H. PEDARRE et al.

No. 1531.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 31, 1935.

Carlos G. Spaht, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Taylor, Porter & Brooks, of Baton Rouge, for appellees.

LE BLANC, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the opinion this day handed down in the case of Charles N. Lavergne, Individually, and for and on Behalf of His Minor Son, Daly C. Lavergne, v. Roch H. Pedarre et al. (La.App.) 165 So. 17, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, at the costs of the plaintiff, appellant.