alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Barry SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10114.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Charles Barry Smith, federal prisoner #27483-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon. Smith filed a timely notice of appeal. Fed. R.App. P. 26(a)(2) (“Exclude intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays when the period is less than 11 days.”). Smith asserts that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 645, as that recent amendment to the sentencing guidelines retroactively applies to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)’s determination of concurrent sentence calculation.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment “based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission ..., if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) applies only to amendments to the sentencing guidelines that operate retroactively, as set forth in subsection (c) of the applicable policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. *United States v. Drath,*89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir.1996).

Amendment 645 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Thus, an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction based on Amendment 645 would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. *See id.*at 218. Amendment 645 therefore cannot be given retroactive *397effect in the context of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion. *See id.*

In light of the foregoing, the district court lacked the authority to reduce Smith’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Lopez,*26 F.3d 512, 515 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1994). The district court’s judgment denying Smith’s motion for reduction of sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
No. 12,849.

#### Union Stave Company vs. Wm. L. Langridge, Sheriff, etc. (L. H. Marrero, Sheriff and Tax Collector, Substituted).

In an action claiming immunity from taxation under the article of the Oonstitutitution exempting property and capital employed in manufacturing industries, it is essential the petition should allege that the factory employs not less than five hands. Otherwise the suit is subject to dismissal on exception of no cause of action.

*1344/"VN APPEAL from the Twenty-first Judicial District Court, Parish-of Jefferson. *Rost, J.*

*Bernard MeOloskey*for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*Robert J. Perkins,*District Attorney, for Defendant, Appellant.

Argued and submitted November 11, 1808.

Opinion handed down December 5, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Blanchard, J.

This is an action to declare certain property exempt from taxation, and the appeal is prosecuted by the defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff decreeing such exemption and perpetuating an injunction prohibiting the sale of the property for taxes.

The petition alleges the ownership of a certain lot of ground,, which is described, and the'averment is made that a factory is built thereon “ for the manufacture of sugar and rice barrel material, viz.: staves and headings.” It is further represented that the property is used exclusively for such manufacturing purpose.

The exemption is claimed under Art. 207 of the Constitution of 1879.

If the property, used for the purpose aforesaid, be exempt from taxation under this article (as to which we pass no opinion), it is clear it is not so exempt unless the factory employs not less than, five hands, for such is the express requirement of the Constitution-

We have searched plaintiff’s petition in vain for any allegation that its factory employs not less than five hands.

More than that, there is no. proof in the record that not less than five hands aré employed.

Defendant first filed an exception of no cause of action.

Subsequently, with reservation of his rights under the exception, he pleaded the general issue.

The record shows that the exception and the case on its merits were taken up for trial at the same time. The exception was overruled and judgment on the merits followed in favor of plaintiff.

*1345The note of evidence discloses that no- -witnesses were put on the stand, but, in lieu thereof, it was admitted that three witnesses, who had been summoned by plaintiff, if called to the stand “would swear t& the truth of the facts and allegations in plaintiff’s petition contained.”

The allegations of the petition being insufficient, the .exception of no cause of action was well taken and should have been sustained.

Moore vs. City, 48 La. Ann. 1452; *In re*Southern Wood Man. Co., 49 La. Ann. 926.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from be annulled, avoided and reversed, and that this suit be dismissed at plaintiff’s costs in both courts.
EX-4.1



 



 







 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall
be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
  

																							
	 TEN COM 

TEN ENT

JT TEN
	 	 -  

-  
 -  
	 	as tenants in common
 as tenants by the entireties

as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants
in common
	  		  	 	UNIT GIFT MIN ACT	  	  	-	  		 	  
	 	 	Custodian	  	 	  

	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	(Cust)	 				 	(Minor)
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	Act	 	  
	  

	 	 	  		  				  		  		 		 	 	(State)
		 		 		  		  	 	UNIT TRF MIN ACT	  	  	-	  		 	  
	 	 	Custodian (until age             )	  	 	
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	(Cust)	 				 	
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 		 	 	under Uniform Transfers
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	(Minor)	 		
	 	 	  		  				  		  		 	to Minors Act	 	  
	  

		 		 		  		  				  		  		 		 	 	(State)


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 

For value received,
                                         
                                       
hereby sell, assign and transfer unto 
  

			
	 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 	
	 	
	 	 	

  
  

 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND
ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
  
  

 
  
  

 

							
		
	  
  


	 	Shares
	    of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint	 	


							
		
	  


	 	Attorney
	    to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution on the premises.	 	

  

					
			
	 Dated 
	 	 	 	


							
				
		  		  		 	 
		  		  		 	NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as written upon the face of the certificate, in every particular, without alteration or enlargement, or any change
whatever.

  

									
	SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:	 		 	 
		 		 	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

James A. Gresham,

Plaintiff,

v.

Kerry T. Haggard, and 

Tiffany Haggard,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-13405

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [56]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s August 7, 2012

Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 56.) The Court is fully advised in the premises and has

reviewed the record and the pleadings. Defendant Kerry T. Haggard has not filed any

objections. Plaintiff’s “failure to file objections to the report[] and recommendation[] waives

any further right to appeal.” Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich.

Aug. 24, 2012) (citation omitted). “Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s

report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Id. (citation

omitted.) The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Counts

I through VIII. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with respect to

Count X. The Court enters judgment against Defendant Kerry T. Haggard in the amount

2:09-cv-13405-NGE-MAR Doc # 58 Filed 09/21/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1011
of $2,645,700.00 in actual and statutory damages. The Court further awards reasonable

costs and attorneys’ fees. The Court orders Plaintiff to submit a bill of costs within twentyone days of this order. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: September 21, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on September 21, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13405-NGE-MAR Doc # 58 Filed 09/21/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1012
#### Mary A. MORGAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY and Grover DeWayne Emily, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 65583.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 21, 1995.

James S. Collins, II, St. Louis, for appellant.

Robbye Hill Toft, St. Lords, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and WHITE and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Mary A. Morgan, appeals from the judgment on a jury verdict which awarded her damages in her action for bodily injury.

We have reviewed the record on appeal. The evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### CLARK v. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO.*

No. 8491.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 26, 1938.

R. L. Henderson, of Waco, Tex., for appellant.

Hobert Price, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

Before FOSTER and SIBLEY, Circuit Judges, and STRUM, District Judge.

*

Rehearing denied March 25, 1938.

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

This is a suit to recover compensation under the provisions of the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St.Tex. art. 8306 et seq. Error is assigned to the direction of a verdict for defendant.

The following material facts are undisputed. .Appellant was employed to operate a freight elevator by the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth, for which he received $42 per month and two meals a day. His duties were performed entirely on the hotel premises. He lived some fourteen blocks away from the hotel. On the morning of February 20, 1934, as he wa,s about to board a street ear to go to his work, he was struck by an automobile on the street and seriously injured. He gave notice of injury, and filed his claim with the Industrial Accident Board oh July 6, 1935. On' October 1, 1935, the claim was denied on .the ground that he was not injured while engaged in the course of his employment. He appealed to the District Court to have the ruling of the board set aside, and to recover for his injuries.

Appellant contends that he was required to live where he could be reached by telephone at any time of the day or night, and was subject to call to.perform his duties at the hotel at any time, and therefore he was in the course of his employment when going to work.

The contention is untenable. He was not answering ah emergency call when injured. He was going to work at the usual hour. His duties did not begin until he arrived at the hotel. The risk to which he was exposed while going to his -work was one'that affected the public generally, and did not arise from his employment. Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Palmer, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 283; Smith v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, Tex.Com.App., 105 S.W.2d 192. Since the Industrial Accident Board did not deny recovery on the ground that the claim was filed too late, under the law it is unnecessary to discuss that point raised by appellee.

The record presents no reversible, error.

Affirmed.
#### Willet F. Cook, Appellant, v. Rutherfurd Realty Company and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars, costs and disbursements. No opinion.
Exhibit
32
  CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 Mondo Acquisition II, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrin
M. Ocasio, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350
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; 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:  August
      12, 2008
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/ Darrin
      M. OcasioDarrin
      M. Ocasio
              Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2


         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CFO 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, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. Carroll Benton,
Principle Accounting 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, 2003 and for the periods then ended

                                            /s/ M. Carroll Benton
                                            -----------------------
                                            M. Carroll Benton
                                            Prinicple Accounting and
                                            Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46007-46008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18128]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0063] (formerly Docket No. 2008N-0016)


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Exports: Notification and 
Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Exports: Notification and 
Recordkeeping Requirements'' has been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information 
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers 
Lane,Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3794.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 8, 2008 (73 
FR 26119), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0482. 
The approval expires on July 31, 2011. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.


[[Page 46008]]


    Dated: July 30, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-18128 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Robert Adell, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,385.

First District, Second Division.

October 11, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Marshall A. Patner, Frederick F. Cohn and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Truman Larrey, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT.

Not to be published in full.
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAOP21-0524TYRONLEERISHER,Petitioner,v.BOBOLSON-STATEOFMONTANA,Respondent.GRANTOFMOTIONTOPROCEEDWITHOUTPAYMENTOFFILINGFEEMotiontoproceedwithoutpaymentofthefilingfeeinthismatterisGRANTED.DATED:October21,2021.BOWENGREENWOODClerkoftheSupremeCourt10/21/2021Case Number: OP 21-0524
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Sona Resources Inc. (the “Company”) for the six months ended March 31, 2011 and for period from January 18, 2007 (date of inception) to March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ajeeta Pinheiro, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 April 25, 2011                                                                           AJEETA PINHEIRO
 Ajeeta Pinheiro
 Chief Executive Officer,
 President and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

May 25, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00132

- CV

BROOKS COUNTY, TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

Maria Armandina BUENROSTRO,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court

, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 04

- 17973

- CV Honorable Richard C. Terrell , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant, Brooks County, Texas’s brief was originally due May 25, 2021. On May 21, 2021, appellant filed a motion requesting a twenty

- day extension of time in which to file its brief. The motion is GRANTED and appellant’s brief is due no later than June 14, 2021

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of May, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      921
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   921
<PP&E>                                          32,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              121
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,408
<SALES>                                          3,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,399
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,134
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14


</TABLE>