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

No. 02-41102.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Ramiro Robles-Salas (Robles) appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred in going beyond the statute of conviction and the charging instrument to determine that a 16-level increase in his offense level was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii). This argument is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Sanchez-Garcia,*319 F.3d 677 (5th Cir.2003).

Robles again challenges the 16-level increase in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) on the basis that his 1996 conviction for alien transporting is not an alien smuggling offense. He acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Solis-Campozano,*312 F.3d 164 (5th Cir.2002), but seeks to preserve the issue for possible further review. In *Solis-Campozano,*312 F.3d at 167-68, we held that the term “alien smuggling offense,” as used in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) includes the offense of transporting aliens within the United States. Thus, the 16-level increase to Robles’ offense level was not error.

Robles argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because a prior felony conviction is an element of the offense of illegal re-entry, and not merely a sentence enhancement, and should have been charged in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *410the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but seeks to preserve it for possible further review in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. We must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 12/31/97
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         113,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  922,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                    558,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,690,800
<PP&E>                                       2,224,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,064,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,071,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,372,500
<BONDS>                                      1,825,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          277,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,743,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,071,300
<SALES>                                      1,317,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,317,100
<CGS>                                          648,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  648,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               423,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                199,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            137,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                  15,700
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   857,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.80
<FN>
<F1>LOSS-PROVISION INCLUDED IN OTHER-EXPENSE ABOVE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:



1.       I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report
on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2018-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2.       Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.       Based
on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



4.       I
am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted
in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects;
and



5.      All
of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably
relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association (as indenture trustee).



|Date: January 21, 2022 | By: | /s/ Rajesh Kalathur                        
|---------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Rajesh Kalathur                            
|                       |     | President of John Deere Capital Corporation
|                       |     | (as Servicer)
Exhibit








                                        
Exhibit 10.61




SCHEDULE OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO THE 2018 FORM OF INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 10.60
NAME 
Damon J. Audia
Judith L. Bacchus
Michelle R. Keating
Ronald L. Port
Carlonda R. Reilly
Patrick S. Watson
<PAGE>

                                  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

            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital SBIC, L.P. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2005 (the Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

      Dated: August 4, 2005

                                                   /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                                   -----------------
                                       Allen F. Grum, President of Rand Capital
                                                      Corporation
                                       (equivalent of chief executive officer of
                                               Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)

      Dated: August 4, 2005

                                               /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                               -----------------------
                                  Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of Rand Capital
                                                     Corporation
                                      (equivalent of chief financial officer of
                                              Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



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 DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|Dated: May 20, 2004 |  | /s/Larry Bruce 
Larry Bruce
Vice President Finance, Secretary and Treasurer
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.















































25
#### Dwayne TRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R & B FALCON DRILLING USA, INC.; et al., Defendants, R & B FALCON DRILLING USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-30794

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2003.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dwayne Triggs brought suit pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 688, and general maritime law for injuries sustained while he worked on an offshore oil rig. The jury awarded damages for pain and suffering, but it did not award any amount for lost wages.

*326On appeal, Triggs challenges the district court’s refusal to allow the introduction of the deposition testimony of Kenneth Wiggins. Triggs, however, did not adequately show Wiggins’s unavailability and has not shown that the district court erred in determining that the jury could not evaluate Wiggins’s credibility. We find no abuse of discretion. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3)(D); *Bobb v. Modem Products, Inc.,*648 F.2d 1051, 1055 (5th Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds, *Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.,*107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir.1997).

Triggs also argues that the district court erred in refusing to allow him to impeach a defense expert’s testimony with the deposition of Wiggins, which the expert admitted he had reviewed. A review of both the expert’s testimony and Wiggins’s deposition shows that the expert’s testimony was not inconsistent with Wiggins’s deposition testimony. We conclude this argument is without merit.

Triggs argues that the jury’s failure to award any amount for lost wages or lost meal benefits was contrary to the law and evidence. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the jury’s verdict should be affirmed because the facts and inferences do not “point so strongly and so overwhelmingly in favor of [Triggs’s claims] that reasonable men could not arrive at any verdict to the contrary.” *Granberry v. O’Barr,*866 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir.1988) (internal quotation omitted).

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.
#### MELANCON v. TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. et al.

No. 2672.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 26, 1945.

For original opinion, see 19 So.2d 899.

A. Deutsche O’Neal, of Houma, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appellant.

Ellender & Wright, of Houma, and Harry McCall, of New Orleans, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case of Wright et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., Defendant, La.App., 20 So.2d 558, the application for rehearing herein will not be considered for having been filed too late.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-192-01-PB

Harold Mayo

O R D E R

The defendant, Harold Mayo, shall self-surrender for service of sentence at the institution

designated by the Bureau of Prisons before 2:00 pm on March 11, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

February 15, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Thomas McCue, Esq.

Joseph Laplante, Esq.

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00192-PB Document 146 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

)

Robert GENNELL, Jr., et al. )

)

Plaintiffs; )

) CASE NO: 1:05-cv-00145-PB

v. )

)

FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX GROUND )

PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.; and FEDEX HOME )

DELIVERY (a division thereof); )

)

Defendants )

PROPOSED ORDER

The Court, based upon the submissions of counsel, makes the following 

ORDER:

1. The following plaintiffs will make up the group of “test plaintiffs” to be used in 

this phase of the litigation: Robert Gennell; Kimball Rice, Scott Swazey, Gary 

Terrio, Shane Tucker, Lance Tucker, Shane Robinson and Joe Bills.

2. The participation of any plaintiff in this “test plaintiff” sequence will not in any 

manner compromise his ability to act as a named plaintiff or his status as a 

named plaintiff in this litigation.

3. The following schedule will control the “test plaintiff” sequence:

● April 13, 2012: Deadline for plaintiffs to serve supplemental Rule 

26(a)(1)(A)(iii) disclosures for the “test plaintiffs.”

● July 15, 2012: Deadline for parties to complete all fact discovery on the 

“test plaintiffs.”

● July 29, 2012: Deadline for plaintiffs to serve expert reports.

● September 28, 2012: Deadline for defendants to serve expert reports.

● October 26, 2012: Deadline for the parties to complete expert 

depositions.

Case 1:05-cv-00145-PB Document 28 Filed 04/07/12 Page 1 of 2
2

● November 23, 2012: Deadline for parties to file summary judgment or 

other motions.

● December 28, 2012: Deadline for oppositions to summary judgment or 

other motions.

● January 18, 2013: Deadline for reply briefs.

4. The Court understands that the parties will take up to 45 days following the 

Court’s decision on the summary judgment motions to conduct mediation. 

The Court understands and agrees that, no later than at the end of that 45 

day period, the parties are to return to the Court and report on the mediation 

process and further, if necessary, to propose a trial calendar by which the 

remainder of this case will be tried.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________________________

Honorable Paul J. Barbadoro

Judge of District Court

Case 1:05-cv-00145-PB Document 28 Filed 04/07/12 Page 2 of 2
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1022

AN ACT

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure the

rules of etiquette for flying the flag of the United States

do not preclude the flying of flags at half mast when

ordered by city and local officials.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1022 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Recogni3 tion Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. FLAG CODE AMENDMENT.

5 Section 7(m) of title 4, United States Code, is amend6 ed by inserting after the sentence beginning ‘‘In the event

7 of the death of a present or former official of the govern8 ment of any State’’ the following: ‘‘In the event of the

9 death of a present or former official of any city or other

10 locality, the chief elected official of that locality may pro11 claim that the National flag shall be flown at half staff.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 12,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1022

AN ACT

To amend title 4, United States Code, to make sure

the rules of etiquette for flying the flag of theUnited States do not preclude the flying of flagsat half mast when ordered by city and local officials.
Acknowledgment of Assignment



 Exhibit 10.14.1 
  
 [Letterhead of State Street Bank and Trust Company] 
  
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSIGNMENT 
  

November 2, 2004 
  
 Phil Swan 
 Capital Guardian Trust Company 
 333 South Hope Street, 51st Floor 
 Los Angeles, CA 90071 
  

	 	Re:	Investment Advisor Agreement, dated as follows: Growth Fund, November 1, 1992, Aggressive Fund, November 1, 1992 and Balanced Fund, June 30, 1997 between State Street Bank and Trust
Company and [Investment Advisor] relating to the American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective Trust (“Trust”) 

  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 This is to notify you that effective December 1, 2004, State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”) will be replaced as trustee of the
Trust by State Street Bank and Trust Company of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire Trust Company and wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street (“State Street Trust Company”). 
  
 In connection with the appointment of State Street Trust Company as trustee of the Trust, State Street hereby assigns its
rights under the Investment Advisor Agreement to State Street Trust Company, and State Street Trust Company agrees to assume all of such rights and all obligations under the Investment Advisor Agreement as of a effective date. 
  
 By countersigning this letter below and returning it to us, you acknowledge
and agree to such assignment and that State Street Trust Company will be deemed your counterparty for all purposes under the Investment Advisory Agreement effective as of December 1, 2004. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

							
	State Street Bank and Trust Company	 	State Street Bank and Trust Company of New Hampshire
				
	 By:
	  	 /s/ Beth Halberstadt

	 	 By:
	  	 /s/ Gary Jenkins


	 Name:
	  	 Beth Halberstadt
	 	 Name:
	  	 Gary Jenkins

	 Title:
	  	 Vice President
	 	 Title:
	  	 Director

			
	Capital Guardian Trust Company	 	 	  	 
				
	 By:
	  	 /s/ Michelle D. Casados

	 	 	  	 
	 Name:
	  	 Michelle D. Casados
	 	 	  	 
	 Title:
	  	 Assistant Vice President
#### SMITH v. NUGENT.

No. 6737.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

May 29, 1944.

A. A. Moss, of Winnfield, for appellant.

Eugene Beck, of Winnfield, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover certain cattle purchased by the defendant, Nugent, at a succession sale, in which said cattle were sold as belonging to the Succession of P. F. Smith. Writs were issued under which the cattle were sequestered.

Plaintiff’s claim of ownership of the cattle is based upon his contention that he acquired 19 head of cattle from P. F. Smith, his uncle, at a price of $20 per head, several weeks prior to the death of P. F. Smith on October 25, 1941. The cattle involved in this suit are claimed by plaintiff as being a part of the 19 heád purchased as above set forth.

Defendant claims ownership of the cattle by virtue of purchase from the administrator of the Succession of P. F. Smith, deceased, at public auction on March 6, 1943.

It is admitted by plaintiff that he did not pay the purchase price for the cattle in cash, but that he agreed to allow credit upon a certain mortgage note of P. F. Smith. The note in question was dated March 28, 1930, for the sum of $1,800.

The case was tried by the Honorable R. W. Oglesby sitting as Special Judge in place of the Honorable Cas Moss, District Judge, recused, and there was judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands and dismissing the suit.

*360■ The determination of this case. rests squarely upon a question of- fact as' to the ownership of the cattle. There was a violent conflict of evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged sale. A number of witnesses testifying on behalf of plaintiff swore that P. F. Smith had made statements on various occasions that he had sold his cattle to P. W. Smith, his nephew. About the same numbet of witnesses testified on behalf of defendant and were equally as positive and emphatic that P. F. Smith had stated on numerous occasions a short while prior to his death that the cattle belonged to him, and that he did not want Pete W. Smith to get possession of fhe cattle after his death.

It is well-established that appellate courts will not disturb findings of fact as made by trial courts, except in instances where there has been manifest error. We find no such error in this case. The trial judge saw the witnesses, heard them testify, and by his judgment held as a fact that P. F. Smith had not divested himself of ownership of the cattle, and that the sale of the administrator of the Succession of P. F. Smith to the defendant was valid and served to convey good title.

An examination of the record convinces us of the correctness of the judgment. Circumstances surrounding the disputed transaction are more corroborative of defendant’s contentions than of those of plaintiff.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.