alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RONALD ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CivilAction No. 09-521 (RJL) EDWARD F. REILLY, et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. 

## -------------------------) ORDER Forthe reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDEREDthat the defendants' motionto dismiss [9] is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED. This is a final, appealable order. 

### See Fed. R. App. P. 4. 

# 2' 

# RllHA&eJ:I
United States District Judge
#### NATIONAL PUMPS CORPORATION v. BRUNING et al.

No. 17454.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 20, 1941.

Deutsch and Kerrigan and Lehman K. Preis, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Theo. Cotonio, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

After a reconsideration of this cause we have reached the conclusion that our original opinion was correct as far as it went, however, appellee, by application for modification of our decree, claims that attorneys’ fees should have been" allowed.

Article 2705 of the Revised Civil Code reads in part as follows: “The lessor has, for the payment of his rent, and other obligations of the lease, a right of pledge on the movable effects of the lessee, which are found on the property leased.”

Article 2707 declares: “This right of pledge affects, not only the movables of the lessee and underlessee, but also those belonging to third persons, when their goods are contained in the house or store, by their own consent, express or implied.”

The lease involved contains the follow-. ing provision with respect to attorneys’ fees: “ * * * and in case of suit or employment of counsel to collect rent s.aid Lessee shall pay counsel fees not to exceed twenty-five per cent, on the sum or sums due and exigible, * * * ”.

The attorneys’ fees, which were not pressed in argument or brief on the original hearing, should have been allowed. Henderson v. A. Meyers & Bros., 45 La. Ann. 791, 13 So. 191, Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. McCall Bros. Planting & Manufacturing Co., 140 La. 763, 73 So. 857.

The amount of the fee is not fixed in the lease, the stipulation being that it shall not exceed twenty-five per cent, of the sum due. The maximum amount (25% of $360, or $90) is not too much under the circumstances.

Appellee also contends that interest should have been allowed. The provision with respect to interest, as it appears in the ’ lease, is as follows: “ * * * all notes to bear interest at the rate 'of eight per cent, per annum, from maturity until paid.”

There were no notes issued, and this vague reference to conventional interest is not sufficient. Legal interest on contractual obligations runs from the time they become due unless otherwise stipulat*245ed. Revised Civil Code, Art. 1938, Code of Practice, Art. 554. Here the lease stipulates the whole rent for the unexpired term becomes due upon the first default in the monthly payment which, according to the evidence, occurred October 1, 1938, consequently, interest will be allowed from that date.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that our former decree he amended so as to allow the sum of $90 as attorneys’ fees, in addition to the sum of $360, previously awarded, together with 5% interest from October 1, 1938 and, as thus amended it is reinstated and it becomes the final decree of this Court.

Original decree amended and reinstated.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50227 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MANUEL ANTONIO GALDAMEZ

- ESCOBAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CR

- 931

- 1

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Manuel Antonio Galdamez

- Escobar appeals his 41

- month sentence, imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation . He contends the sentence was unreasonable because it was greater tha n necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

.

* 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 January 8, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50227 Document: 00512492853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014No. 13

- 50227
Although post

- Booker , the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

- discretion stan dard, the district court must still properly calculate the Guideline

- sentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application o f the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g. , United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Galdamez does not claim procedur al error. Instead, he maintains only that the challenged sentence was substantively unreasonable. “A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated
g uideline s ra nge is presumptively reasonable

. ” United States v. Campos

Maldonado , 531 F.3d 33 7, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). Galdamez contends , however, the presumption of reasonableness does not apply to his within

- G uideline sentence because the illegal reentry G uideline, § 2L1.2, is not supported by empirical data. Galdamez concedes this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 530

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009). He raises the issue only to preserve it for possible further review. A sserting his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals outl ined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Galdamez contends the district court failed to consider that the applicable Guideline does not take into account his benign motive for returning to the United States and the oversta t ement of his criminal history. Galdamez’ con tentions are insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness

. E.g. , United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008)

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50227 Document: 00512492853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 165 (Monday, August 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Southern Delivery System Project, Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice for additional public commenting opportunity on the 
water quality analysis portion of the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (Draft EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, is announcing the opportunity to 
provide additional comments on the water quality analysis portion of 
the Draft EIS. The original 60-day comment period for the Draft EIS was 
scheduled to end on April 26, 2008 but was extended to June 13, 2008. 
Comments received during this period expressed a concern about the 
section addressing water quality analysis. In order to address these 
comments, an additional water quality analysis is being prepared for 
the Draft EIS. This analysis will augment and reinforce the existing 
analysis for the Draft EIS. Reclamation will continue to receive 
comments on the existing water quality portion of the Draft EIS while 
the additional analysis is performed.

DATES: Comments on the existing water quality analysis featured in the 
DEIS will be received until provided by future notice. When completed 
the additional analysis will be made available for public review and 
comment during a 45-day period. The availability of the additional 
analysis and the corresponding 45-day comment period will be announced 
in the Federal Register on a future date in 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the Draft EIS to Southern Delivery System 
EIS, Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Colorado Area Office, 11056W. 
County Road 18E, Loveland, CO 80537.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara Lamb, telephone: (970) 962-4326 
or FAX (970) 962-3212. You may submit e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#046f686569664463742a717766762a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a11161b17183a1d0a540f091808541d150c">[email protected]</span></a> by 
September 22, 2008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before including your name, address, phone 
number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in 
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including 
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available 
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your 
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Michael J. Ryan,
Regional Director, Great Plains Region.
[FR Doc. E8-19612 Filed 8-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6413 

To prohibit local educational agencies from obligating certain Federal funds 

when schools are not providing full-time in-person instruction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2022 

Mrs. CAMMACK (for herself, Mr. MAST, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. DUNN, and Mr. 

RUTHERFORD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To prohibit local educational agencies from obligating certain 

Federal funds when schools are not providing full-time 

in-person instruction. 

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 ‘‘Keep Kids in Schools 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESTRICTION RELATING TO IN-PERSON INSTRUC7 TION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, and subject to subsection (b), a local eduVerDate Sep 11 2014 16:28 Jan 21, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6413.IH H6413

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6413 IH

1 cational agency that received funds under section 18003 

2 of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136), 

3 section 313 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Sup4 plemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (division M of Public 

5 Law 116–260), or section 2001 of the American Rescue 

6 Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117–2) shall not obligate 

7 such funds during any period when one or more elemen8 tary or secondary schools served by such local educational 

9 agency are not providing full-time in-person instruction. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—The restriction described in sub11 section (a) shall not apply with respect to a school that 

12 is not providing full-time in-person instruction due to fol13 lowing quarantine or isolation guidelines issued by the 

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 35.2**

**SERVICERCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTCAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE TRUST 2006-A**

Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2006-A

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

c/o 140 East Shore Drive, Room 1052-D

Glen Allen, Virginia23059

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2006-A for thefiscal year ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Capital One, National Association (formerly known asHibernia National Bank) (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and representthat:

1.   A review of the activities and performanceof the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of February 17, 2006, byand between Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. and the Servicer (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under mysupervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of theReport.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 15th day of February 2007.
| **CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION** |   |                     |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| ** **                            |   |                     |
| ** **                            |   |                     |
| By:                                   |   | /s/ Steven E. Cunningham |   |   |
| Name:                                 |   | Steven E. Cunningham     |   |   |
| Title:                                |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6789

JACKIE DALE EASTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE FOREMAN DARYL, Buchanan County RoadGang; ROBERT GELLESPIE, OIC, TCU #31; LIEUTENANT MCFARLAND, TCU #31; NURSE BARRETT, TCU #31, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-112-R) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jackie Dale Easter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jackie Dale Easter appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates , 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissalwithout prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar, 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Easter may move in the district court to reopen his case and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
11-589-cv Torres v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND 

### CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 19 thday of December, two thousand eleven. PRESENT: PETER W. HALL, GERARD E. LYNCH, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges

.

__________________________________________ Wilfredo Torres, Plaintiff-Appellant , v. 11-589-cv Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee

.

__________________________________________ FOR APPELLANT: WILFREDO T ORRES , pro se , New York, New York. FOR APPELLEES: A MY A NN B ARCELO , Assistant United States Attorney, (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief ), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, New York.Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J .). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Appellant Wilfredo Torres, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of S. Afr. , 300 F.3d 230, 235 (2d Cir. 2002). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). We do not decide the government’s waiver argument and exercise our discretion to consider Torres’s appeal on the merits. We affirm for substantially the same reasons as those stated by the magistrate judge in his thor ough and well-reasoned report and recommendation. We have considered Torres’s additional arguments, including his arguments that the district court improperly denied his request for appointment of counsel and that the magistrate judge exhibited bias against him, and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED

. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            PETROMINERALS CORPORATION


                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  this  Quarterly  Report  of  Form of 10-Q of Petrominerals
Corporation  (the  "Company")  for the period ended June 30, 2002, I, Everett L.
Hodges,  President,  CEO and CFO, of 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:

     1.   This  Periodic  Report fully complies with the requirements of section
          13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
          or  78o  (d));  and

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



Dated:  August 5, 2002                   /s/  Everett  L.  Hodges
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Everett L. Hodges, President, CEO & CFO
                                         Petrominerals  Corporation


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Intelligent Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
March 30, 2010





/s/ David GorodyanskyDavid
      GorodyanskyPrincipal
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Amended Annual Report of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One AlarmMonitoring, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ended December 31, 2004  (the“Report”), which this certification accompanies, I, Richard Ginsburg, in mycapacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certifythat to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Companies.

 

 
| Date: March 24,  2005 |   | /s/      Richard  Ginsburg                                                          |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   | Richard Ginsburg                                                                                                  |   |
|                       |   | President  and Chief Executive Officer, Protection One, Inc. and Protection One  Alarm Monitoring, Inc. |   |

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies aspart of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----