alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
174 La. 700

#### STATE v. LARACCA.

No. 31651.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1932.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 1932.

Lai C. Blanchard, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., and James IT. Galloway, Dist. Atty., and Nash Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, for the State.

ODOM, J.

Defendant was. indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of a sum of money from the person of another. He was sentenced to serve not less than three, nor more than five, years at hard labor, and appealed.

There is only one bill of exceptions in the record, which bill was retained to the ruling of the court in refusing to grant a new trial. This bill recites that “the verdict and judgment herein rendered is contrary to the law and the evidence.”

The rule is too well settled in this state to need citation of authorities to the effect that an appeal to this court solely upon the ground that the verdict of a jury is contrary ta the law and the evidence presents nothing for review.

Aside from £he settled jurisprudence to this effect, article 516 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that:

“Neither the appellate nor supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court-can be invoked to review the granting or the refusal to grant a new trial except for error of law.”

Judgment affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Gold Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich , Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:



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



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



By /s/ Demitro Marianovich

Demitro Marianovich
Chief Financial Officer
April 7, 2011
#### William Strauch v. Pennsylvania, New York and Long Island Railroad Company.

—Motion granted, unless appellant have appeal ready for June term.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10116 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. CRYSTAL CHANDERLER CARR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 183

- 1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Crystal Chanderler Carr appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty

- plea conviction for one count of aiding in the preparation of a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and one count of filing a false tax return in violation of § 7206(1). She contends that the 72

- month, above

guidelines sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for the sentence . Specifically, Carr

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 13, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10116 Document: 00515236244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2019No. 19

- 10116

2 argues that the district court fail ed to consider or address her nonfrivolous arguments for a below

- guidelines sentence, “focusing its explanation entirely on the negative side of the punishment ledger.” Because Carr did not object to the adequacy of the district court’s
reasons, her procedural unreasonableness claim is subject to plain

- error review

. See United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009). To show plain error, Carr must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects her s ubstantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If s he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error , but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. The sentencing record reflects that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the above

- guidelines sentence. The district court explicitly stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and gave reasons tied to those factors . A lthough the district court did not expressly address Carr’s mitigation arguments, the court acknowledged that it had reviewed her sentencing memorandum and request for a downward varian ce
. Because the district court’s explanation for the chosen sentence allows for effective appellate review , Carr has failed to show error, much less clear or obvious error. See United States v. Fraga , 704 F.3d 432, 4 39 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10116 Document: 00515236244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2019
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. John Lewis WALKER, Appellant, v. Nathan MAYO, as Custodian of Florida State Prison, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

July 23, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
----

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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. |

| Date:      March 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Anthony P. Costa                             |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Anthony      P. Costa, Chairman and Co-Chief          |
|                      |   | Executive      Officer                                |
|                      |   |                                                  |
|                      |   |                                                  |
| Date:      March 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Bryan Lahey                                  |
|                      |   | Bryan      Lahey, Interim Principal AccountingOfficer |
Exhibit 4.3

 

	
 
    	
Richard   J. Bradfield
    
	
 
    	
Senior Vice President   and Treasurer
    
	
 
    	
PHH Corporation
    
	
 
    	
3000 Leadenhall Road
    
	
 
    	
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
    


 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549

 

May 8, 2014

 

Subject:   PHH Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2014 — File No. 001-07797

 

To whom it may concern:

 

Neither PHH Corporation (the “Company”) nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to long-term debt not being registered under which the total amount of securities authorized thereunder exceeds 10% of the total assets of the Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis other than those instruments filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. In accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR Sec. 229.601), the Company hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument that defines the rights of holders of such long term debt and that is not filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

 

Very truly yours,

 

PHH Corporation

 

	
/s/ Richard J.   Bradfield
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Richard J. Bradfield
    	
 
    
	
Senior Vice President   and Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19960]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW161802]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Retamco Operating Inc. for competitive 
oil and gas lease WYW161802 for land in Carbon County, Wyoming. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW161802 effective April 1, 2008, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E8-19960 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
K.J., MOTHER OF K.K.G.J, MINOR CHILD

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2970

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James P. Nilon , Judge

.
Lara Mason of Mason Law Firm, P.A., Ponte Vedra Beach , for Appellant.

Ward L. M etzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville; David Paul Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF

, BILBREY

, and M.K. THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
EX-35 (d)
(logo) imb
IndymacBank


REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance


I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transactions listed on the attached schedule and I certify:

a) A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of its
performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
supervision.

b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth below
IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the agreement in all
material respects throughout the reporting period.

c) None


By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
Robert M. Abramian
First Vice President
Home Loan Servicing
Investor Reporting
Indymac Bank


By: /s/ Bart Vincent
Bart Vincent
First Vice President
HLS-Finance
Financial
Indymac Bank


Prepared for: Wells Fargo Bank

Date: February 28, 2007

Ref: EXHIBIT A


www.indymacbank.com

7700 W. Parmer Lane, Bldg D, Austin, TX 78729
Tel: 512.250.2700


(page)


EXHIBIT A

849 GSR 2006-1F 1/30/06
902 BSALTA 2006-1 1/30/06
840 DBALT 2006-AR1 1/31/06
918 BAYVIEW 2006-A 02/08/06
213 GSR 2006-2F
214 GSR 2006-3F 03-30-06
159 GSR 2006-0A1 8/24/06
229 MASTR 2006-1 03-29-06
223 DBALT 2006-AF1 03-31-06
231 HARBORVIEW 2006-2
233 LUMINENT 2006-3 (4-28-06)
287 LUMINENT 2006-5 (6-29-06)
454 LUMINENT CONDUIT 12MAT WLS 11/27/06
5001 LUMINENT 12MAT CONDUIT WLS 12/27/06
235 BAFC 2006-D 04/28/06
219 GSR 2006-5F 5/26/06
809 GSR 2006-6F (GS) 6/30/06
808 HARBORVIEW 2006-6 6/30/06
807 DBALTA 2006-AR 2 6/30/06
921 BSALTA 2006-4 6/30/06
285 MALT 2006-3 (6-30-06)
141 BSALTA 2006-5 7/28/06
278 GSAMP 2006-S4 (6-9-06)
199 HARBORVIEW 2006-8 (GW) 8/30/06
430 LUMINENT 2006-6 092806
432 MLMI 2006-F1 (ML) 09/29/06
379 CSMC 2006-8 09/29/06
378 BAFC 2006-H 9/29/06
178 MARM 2006-0A2 11/15/06
296 GSAA 2006-17 10/30/06
297 DBALT 2006-AR5 10/30/06
442 CSMC 2006-9 10/30/2006
440 ITF CSAB 2006-3 10/31/2006
456 JPALT 2006-S4 11/29/06
457 BCAP 2006-AA2 11/30/2006
458 ACE 2006-SD3 11/30/06
4101 DBALT 2006-AR6 12/15/06
4102 HARBORVIEW 2006-14 12/22/06
4103 MSM 2006-17XS 12/28/06
4104 GSR 2006-10F 12/29/06
4110 LUMINENT 2006-7 12/14/2006
4105 JPMMT 2006-S4 12/21/06
4106 GSAA 2006-20 12/29/06
4111 BSALTA 2006-8 12/28/06
WU - 3.31.2014 - Ex 10.4








Exhibit 10.4


Larry Hammond, 004049
Anne M. Chapman, 025965
Kathleen E. Brody, 026331
OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor
Phoenix, Arizona  85012-2793
(602) 640-9000
lhammond@omlaw.com
achapman@omlaw.com
kbrody@omlaw.com


Attorneys for Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
	
			
	State of Arizona, ex rel. 
Attorney General Thomas C. Horne,


Plaintiff,
 
vs.


Western Union Financial Services, Inc.


Defendant.
	)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
	No.   CV2010-005807


ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SEPARATE AGREEMENTS 




The State of Arizona ex rel. Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General (“State”) and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (“Western Union”), having filed a Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadline for Separate Agreements, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the current deadline of April 14, 2014, for Participating States to execute separate agreements with Western Union regarding the provision of data for transactions sent to or from locations within the Southwest Border Data Area is extended until a date to be determined on or before April 18, 2014.









IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties shall advise the Court on or before April 18, 2014, regarding a new deadline for the Participating States to execute such separate agreements with Western Union.


DATED this 14th  day of April, 2014.


/s/ Hon. Warren Granville                    
THE HONORABLE WARREN GRANVILLE
MARICOPA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE











ORIGINAL lodged this 14th day of 
April, 2014, with:


HON. WARREN GRANVILLE
Judge of the Superior Court
South Court Tower
175 W. Madison
Phoenix, AZ 85003


COPY of the foregoing mailed this 
14th day of April, 2013, to: 


D. Matthew Conti
Office of the Attorney General
1275 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007


Monitor Theodore Greenberg
Greenberg Consulting Arizona LLC
4852 Hutchins Place
Washington, D.C. 20007


/s/ Patricia D. Palmer
#### Kenneth BOND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7043.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 27, 2002.

Decided Nov. 7, 2002.

*124Kenneth Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Bond seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and conclude on the reasoning of the district court that Bond has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Bond v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-1277-AM (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2002; entered June 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2258(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### EBERLE v. DERBES.

No. 14066.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans,

May 2, 1932.

Wm. A. Shaw, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, of New Orleans, for appellee.

HIGGINS, J.

Plaintiff, an accountant, sues the defendant, a certified public accountant, to recover the sum of $137.50 alleged to be due for certain fees earned by him while he was in the defendant’s employ from January 1, 1921; through March 1, 1921. Defendant denied liability. On the trial of the case on the merits there was judgment dismissing the suit, and plaintiff has appealed.

The record shows that plaintiff was employed by the defendant at a salary of $175 per month, and, in addition thereto, he was to receive 25 per cent, of all fees in excess' of $350 for work done or supervised by him. The parties had a disagreement, and the plaintiff resigned his position on March 1, 1921. Plaintiff sued defendant in the civil district court, and, as defendant admitted that he owed the plaintiff $561.87, and plaintiff admitted that he owed the defendant $660 *402for fees which he had collected from clients, the plaintiff dismissed the suit, and a written contract of settlement was entered into on May 28, 1921, whereby the parties agreed that the two claims canceled each other to the extent of the lesser one, the plaintiff paying the defendant the difference in cash, or the sum of $98.13. In this written agreement plaintiff reserved his right's as to four" items, three of which are claimed to be due in this suit.

This suit was filed on November 2, 1922, and was not tried until nine years later, or November 6, 1331, and the plaintiff makes no explanation of this unusual delay. Plaintiff in his brief abandons one item of $25 and reduces another from $62.50 to $38.58, leaving only one item as originally claimed for the sum of $50.

The only witnesses in the case were the plaintiff and the defendant, who both undertook to support their testimony with certain records and memoranda. A careful read*-ing of the record and exhibits leaves us with the conviction that the documents tend to support the defendant’s testimony, rather than the plaintiff’s. Only issues of fact are involved, and the ease falls squarely in the category of those cases in which it has been held that an appellate court will not reverse the finding of a trial court on issues of fact merely because the evidence is conflicting.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.14(a)


 


Revised Schedule to Change in Control
Agreement


 


Horace Mann Educators Corporation (“HMEC”)
and Horace Mann Service Corporation (“HMSC”) entered into Change in Control Agreements with the following persons on
the dates shown. These agreements are substantially similar to the one included as Exhibit 10.14 to HMEC’s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, except that the multiple of the annual base salary and average of annual cash
bonus paid to the employee in the last three years is equal to the duration listed below.


 


	 	 	 	 	Original	 	Replacement
	Employee	 	Duration	 	Agreement Date	 	Agreement Date
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Stephen P. Cardinal	 	2 years	 	December 2008	 	December 2011
	Richard R. Schulenburg	 	2 years	 	December 2007	 	December 2011
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6609 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from using facial recognition 

technology to access any Internal Revenue Service online account. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2022 

Mr. HUIZENGA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from using facial 

recognition technology to access any Internal Revenue 

Service online account. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Facial Authorization 

5 Cannot be Enforced Act’’ or the ‘‘FACE Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FACIAL RECOGNITION FOR AC7 CESS TO INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AC8 COUNTS. 

9 The Secretary of the Treasury may not establish or 

10 maintain any verification process for access to an Internal 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6609 IH

1 Revenue Service online account using facial recognition 

2 technology. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2364

___________ Walter Edward Helgoth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Gene Stubblefield, Superintendent; * George Hayes; Kay Crockett, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 6, 2002 Filed: December 24, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Walter Edward Helgoth appeals the district court’s 1 order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude summary judgment in favor of defendants was proper. Even disregarding the evidence that Mr. Helgoth challenges as hearsay, there is still no trialworthy issue as-2- to whether he suffered “actual injury” for purposes of his access-to courts claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.