alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PARMAN v. ROBERTS.

No. 6953.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 31, 1946.

James W. Jones, Jr., of Natchitoches, for appellant.

John G. Gibbs, of Natchitoches, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit in the Tenth Judicial District Court in and for Natchi-toches Parish, seeking a judgment against her divorced husband for amounts claimed to be due and unpaid on an award of alimony made in divorce proceedings before the Twenty-Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of LaSalle.

The petition was met with a plea to the jurisdiction filed on behalf of the defendant, which plea, after hearing, was sustained, and judgment rendered dismissing plaintiff’s suit. From this judgment plaintiff appealed to this Court.

We are of the opinion that the appeal has been improperly directed to the Court of Appeal in view of the provision of Section 10 of Article 7 of the constitution of 1921 of the State of Louisiana, which directs that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction “ * * * of suits involving-alimony * * *

Counsel for plaintiff and appellant in brief before this Court contends that this-appeal does not fall under the above quoted constitutional provision since, it does not involve either a question as to alimony due or the amount thereof. We do not find this argument to be sound in view of the fact that- recourse to the prayer of plaintiff’s petition discloses the fact that plain*638tiff does not seek the enforcement of a judgment but prays to “* * * have and recover judgment in her favor and against the said George E. Roberts in the full amount of $920.00 * *

The context of the petition clearly establishes the fact that the judgment prayed for by plaintiff is based on an allowance of alimony. Obviously, such a suit is a suit “involving alimony” over which the Supreme Court is given appellate jurisdiction.

We do not know what matters might be set up by way of defense, and, certainly,'it is not only conceivable but entirely probable that a defense would raise points involving the allowance of alimony and the right of plaintiff to a judgment for a specified sum based upon allowance of alimony. Unquestionably, these matters are so related to the essential question of an alimony allowance as to establish the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the appeal be transferred to the Honorable the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Plaintiff-appellant is hereby granted a period of sixty (60) days from and after the date upon which this decree becomes final within which to effect the transfer and to perfect his appeal in said Court, failing which action within the time fixed this appeal is to stand dismissed.

Costs of this appeal are assessed against plaintiff-appellant. All other costs to await final determination hereof.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**



**CERTIFICATION**



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Carnegie Development INC. (the “Company”) for the period ended Sep 30, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Robert W. Bueker as the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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: Oct 13, 2022 |  | */s/ Robert W. Bueker*                | 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------- | 
|                   |  | Robert W. Bueker                      | 
|                   |  | Chief Executive and Financial Officer | 
|                   |  |                                       | 
|                   |  |                                       |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 187 (Thursday, September 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and 
Training


The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and 
Employer Outreach (ACVETEO); Notice of Open Meeting

    The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and 
Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) was established pursuant to Title II of the 
Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 
(Pub. L. 109-233) and Section 9 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) (Pub. L. 92-462, Title 5 U.S.C. app. II). The authority of the 
ACVETEO is codified in Title 38 U.S. Code, Section 4110.
    The ACVETEO is responsible for assessing employment and training 
needs of veterans; determining the extent to which the programs and 
activities of the U.S. Department of Labor meet these needs; and 
assisting to conduct outreach to employers seeking to hire veterans. 
The ACVETEO will conduct a business meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 
from 7:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., at the offices of The Home Depot, USA, at 
2455 Paces Ferry Road, C-21 Large Conference Room, Atlanta, Georgia. 
The ACVETEO will discuss programs to assist veterans seeking employment 
and to raise employer awareness as to the advantages of hiring 
veterans, with special emphasis on employer outreach and wounded and 
injured veterans.
    Individuals needing special accommodations should notify Bill 
Offutt at (202) 693-4717 by October 13, 2008.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of September, 2008.
Charles S. Ciccolella,
Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
[FR Doc. E8-22514 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
NO. 07-03-0114-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JULY 11, 2003

______________________________

DAVID LLOYD CECIL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 45515-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Appellant David Lloyd Cecil appeals his conviction of aggravated sexual assault.

His court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant to Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and representing she

has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief

indicate that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file his

own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared to file

had to be filed by June 30, 2003. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief.
2

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed

one potential area for appeal which concerned the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress

his statement because it was involuntary. The statement was taken at a mental health

facility (the Pavilion) after appellant had told his wife and his daughter that he had been

having inappropriate sexual contact with his granddaughter and had also acted in a

manner which caused his wife to fear he was suicidal. However, counsel explained that

there is nothing in the record to indicate that he was threatened or promised anything by

law enforcement officers in return for his confession or that his statement was anything

other than voluntary. There was also a determination that he was competent to stand trial.

So too have we conducted an independent review of the record to determine

whether there existed reversible error and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring us to conduct an independent review). A

hearing was held outside the presence of the jury to determine that the child victim could

testify via closed circuit television, and there was evidence that the procedure was

necessary to protect the welfare of the child, the child would be traumatized by facing her

grandfather in the courtroom as opposed to the courtroom generally, and the emotional

distress suffered by the child would be more than mere nervousness. See Dufrene v.

State, 853 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). There were

also no objections to the jury charge, and we have found no egregious harm. Further, the

punishment assessed was within that prescribed by law, and the law permits the

cumulation of appellant’s sentence in this cause with that for another offense arising out

of the same criminal episode. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §3.03(b)(2)(A) (Vernon 2003).
3

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-94-PB

Peter Mitrano

O R D E R

The government has responded to defendant’s motion in limine

(Doc. No. 44) with a memorandum explaining its position with

respect to each item of evidence that the defendant seeks to

exclude. I agree with the government’s analysis and deny the

defendant’s motion to the extent that it is inconsistent with the

positions taken by the government in its response. I reserve the

right to reconsider my ruling in whole or in part based upon

other evidence that is produced during the trial.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 13, 20089

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00094-PB Document 68 Filed 04/13/09 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                             EXHIBIT 23.01


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8, No. 2-86308 and No. 33-41048) pertaining to the 1982 Stock Option
Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-61457) pertaining to the
Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan of Computer Language Research,
Inc. of our report dated February 14, 1997, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Computer Language Research, Inc. included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                                             Ernst & Young LLP



Dallas, Texas

March 20, 1997
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, February 2-6, 2009Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 2,093,048 185,516 189,237 837,310 616,589 42,565 4,64Number of loans 27,299 2,121 3,588 12,221 4,545 800 9Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.28 14.34 17.06 22.48 13.62 19.02 27.9

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 7.99 5.73 8.34 9.56 6.29 2.33 8.

Weighted average risk rating3 3.08 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n

Weighted average interest rate4 5.18 5.78 5.78 5.20 4.70 5.13 4.7 Standard error5 .21 .36 .11 .41 .35 .48 1.4

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.52 6.52 6.52 6.66 6.66 6.70 6. 25th percentile 4.04 5.00 5.06 4.30 3.24 3.30 2.5 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.83 5.82 5.08 6.97 4.34 4.86 6.5 Other livestock 4.07 9.98 6.07 4.52 2.64 3.80 n Other current operating expenses7 5.51 5.76 5.88 5.58 5.16 5.19 n

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.49 5.89 5.64 5.18 5.46 7.08 n Farm real estate 5.70 5.48 5.88 5.64 5.65 8.57 6.4 Other8 3.73 5.28 5.58 3.35 3.69 4.79 2.

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 60.36 50.68 51.21 59.13 67.56 87.76 73. Under commitment 71.92 58.90 61.05 76.79 82.06 80.32 44.5 Callable 13.04 13.20 16.62 18.94 3.38 10.52 n Subject to prepayment penalty 1.60 .06 .91 .90 3.55 4.37 n Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.54 10.40 8.75 5.73 2.90 1.66 13. Other livestock 5.04 .94 2.04 5.71 7.28 .19 n Other current operating expenses7 62.30 72.10 73.76 59.38 61.87 59.56 n Farm machinery and equipment 4.81 6.98 8.18 6.26 .80 .97 n Farm real estate 6.49 3.17 3.32 6.13 7.55 2.04 40. Other8 15.82 6.40 3.96 16.78 19.59 35.58 45.

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 11.69 4.19 11.55 12.57 7.21 21.97 29. Other 86.44 95.40 85.46 85.45 92.11 75.16 57.9 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2021

No. 04-21-00021-CV

Nancy ALANIS,

Appellant

v.

U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor trustee to Bank of America, National 

Association, as successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank, M.A., as trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 

2006-He6, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-01238

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due no later than September 17, 2021. Further requests for extensions of 

time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1994...... 2.53 .28 .23 1.56 .18 .27 1.55 .51 .35 .12 1995...... 2.49 .26 .19 1.48 .17 .39 1.45 .57 .36 .12 1996...... 2.22 .18 .17 1.38 .14 .36 1.33 .48 .31 .11 1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2002: Q3... 1.95 .07 .14 1.40 .14 .20 1.16 .40 .29 .10  Q4... 1.65 .13 .15 1.09 .07 .20 .92 .36 .28 .09 2003: Q1... 1.69 .13 .14 1.08 .16 .18 .84 .37 .33 .15  Q2... 1.81 .11 .12 1.27 .15 .15 1.07 .37 .27 .09  Q3... 1.58 .08 .09 1.17 .10 .14 .94 .33 .24 .08  Q4... 1.57 .14 .14 1.04 .10 .15 .80 .36 .31 .10 2004: Q1... 1.60 .09 .13 1.12 .12 .15 .81 .33 .32 .14  Q2... 1.88 .08 .13 1.38 .14 .15 1.06 .43 .28 .10  Q3... 1.62 .07 .12 1.17 .14 .12 .93 .36 .23 .10  Q4... 1.44 .12 .13 .95 .10 .15 .67 .33 .32 .13 2005: Q1... 1.37 .10 .12 .94 .07 .14 .68 .29 .28 .12  Q2... 1.79 .11 .10 1.26 .14 .18 .97 .40 .28 .15  Q3... 1.52 .05 .09 1.10 .14 .14 .83 .33 .27 .10  Q4... 1.19 .12 .13 .77 .07 .09 .57 .27 .24 .11 2006: Q1... 1.53 .12 .13 1.06 .11 .11 .76 .31 .30 .16  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David T. Veale

Leasha Veale

v. Civil No. 06-cv-419-PB

Robert T. Furness, DVM, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated January 5, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

February 7, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: David T. Veale, pro se

James Gleason, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00419-PB Document 11 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

WARREN B . RUDMAN U .S. COURTHOUSE

55 PLEASANT STREET

CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-394 1

Office of the Clerk Telephone

James R. Starr 603-225-1423

Clerk

August 11, 200 8

In re : Civil No. 08-cv-279-JL, Picard v. High Liner Food (USA), Inc .

To: Clerk, Rockingham Superior Court

Formerly your case #(s): 08-E-032 1

By Court order, the above case was remanded to your court . We enclose a certified copy

of the order and docket entries.

Counsel/pro se parties are herewith notified by copy of this letter that no pleadings (or

copies of pleadings) filed in our court are being sent to the Superior Court. If there are

outstanding issues which counsel/pro se parties wish the Superior Court to consider, copies of

such pleadings shall be refiled with the Superior Court Clerk.

Orders of remand are not reviewable on appeal or otherwise, except in certain civil rights

cases. See 28 USC 1447(d), 1443 .

JAMES R. STARR

CLERK

Enclosures

cc: Ralph Woodman, Jr., Esq.

Amy Celeste Mackin, Esq.

Christopher Cole, Esq.

Karyl Roberts Martin, Esq .

Case 1:08-cv-00279-JL Document 11 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 1
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3          Q4          Total
________________________________________________________________________________

1985......    |            12          21          17          18             68
1986......    |            14          14          21          16             65
1987......    |            22          19          12          16             69
1988......    |            11           6          12           7             36
1989......    |             5           7           5           5             22
1990......    |             3           5           6           3             17
1991......    |             2           2           3           1              8
1992......    |             1           1           1           4              7
1993......    |             1           2           2           0              5
1994......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1995......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1996......    |             0           2           0           0              2
1997......    |             0           0           0           1              1
1998......    |             0           0           1           0              1
1999......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2000......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2001......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2002......    |             1           0           0           1              2
2003......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2004......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2005......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2006......    |             0           0           0           0              0
________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41101

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OMAR VASQUEZ, also known as Agustin Lara-Gomez, also known as

Omar Vasquez-Ortiz,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(5:05-CR-2522-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Omar Vasquez appeals his guilty plea conviction and 41-months

sentence for illegally reentering the United States after having

been previously deported. Vasquez claims the district court erred

by enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i),
-2-

based upon a determination that his Texas conviction for delivery

of a controlled substance was a drug trafficking offense. 

Pursuant to our decision in United States v. Gonzales, No. 05-

41221, 2007 WL 1063993, at *1 (5th Cir. 7 Mar. 2007), the district

court did err. When a district court misapplies the advisory

Guidelines, remand is appropriate unless this court concludes, “on

the record as a whole, that the error was harmless, i.e., that the

error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence

imposed”. United States v. Davis, 478 F.3d 266, 273 (5th Cir.

2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, any error

was harmless because the court stated that, even if it had

miscalculated the Guidelines, it would have imposed the same

sentence. See id.

Vasquez also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b). He concedes his constitutional challenge is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998) and

raises it here only to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED