alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 438TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 29, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., and In the Interest of K.A.F.L., A Child, Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00364-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2014-CI-02421

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED AS MOOT. Appellant’s motion to dismiss is moot, as is the

motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction filed by appellees on June 13, 2014,

which was ordered carried with the case.

We order that appellant, The State of Texas, pay all costs, if any,

incurred as a result of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on October 5, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00364-CV

In the Matter of the Marriage of A.L.F.L. and K.L.L., and In the Interest of K.A.F.L., A Child

v.

(NO. 2014-CI-02421 IN 438TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

COPIES

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

$10.00

$10.00

$167.00

$10.00

$138.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$175.00

$10.00

$766.00

$10.00

$128.00

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

INDIGENT

MICHAEL MURPHY

DEANNA WHITLEY

WHITLEY LAW FIRM

DEANNE WHITLEY

STATE OF TEXAS

DEANNE WHITLEY

MICHAEL MURPHY

MICHALE MURPHY

MICHAEL MURPHY

PETITIONER

DEANNA WHITLEY

TAMMY CARTER

INTERVENOR

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this October 5, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
**Exhibit 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Daniel J. Gardetto, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 
| Dated March 25, 2013 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ Daniel J. Gardetto                |
|                      | Daniel J. Gardetto                    |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Lease |
|                      | Trust 2011-A                          |

 

----
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 19

- 11257
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus BOBBY LEE INGRAM,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:94

- cr

- 00002

- WTM

- BWC

- 2

____________________ USCA11 Case: 19-11257 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 05/17/2023 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 19

- 11257

ON REMAND FROM THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before G RANT , L UCK , and E DMONDSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: In this appeal, we originally affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order denying Bobby Lee Ingram’s motion for a sentence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act
2018. See United States v. Ingram , 831 F. App’x 454 (11th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). In pertinent pa rt, * we concluded

-- based on our decision in United States v. Jones , 962 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2020)

-- that the district court was bound by its earlier judge

- made finding that Ingram was responsible for 4,167 grams of crack cocaine. Given that drug

- quan tity finding, we concluded that a “sentence of life imprisonment [was] still the lowest possible penalty that wouldbe available to [Ingram] under the Fair Sentencing Act.” The district court thus lacked authority to reduce Ingram’s sentence for Count 1. See Ingram , 831 F. App’x at 458.

* Because we found the record ambiguous about whether the district court understood properly the scope of its authority to reduce Ingram’s sentence on Count 14, we vacated in part the district court’s denial and remanded for further proceedings. That portio n of our decision is not at issue now

. USCA11 Case: 19-11257 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 05/17/2023 Page: 2 of 319

- 11257 Opinion of the Court 3 The Supreme Court later granted certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the case to us for additional consideration in the light of its decision in Concepcion v. United States , 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). See Ingram v. United States , 143 S. Ct. 70 (2022). We have since concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in Concepcion did not abrogate the reasoning of our decision in Jones , including our determination that “the district court is bound by a previous finding of drug quantity that could have been usedto determine the movant’s statutory penalty at the time of sentence.” See United States v. Jackson , 58 F.4th 1331, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2772 *1, *8

- 9 (11th Cir. 2023) (reinstating the Court’s prior decision affir ming the denial of Jackson’s motion to reduce his sentence).
Because our decision in Jones remains binding law, we reinstate our prior decision in this appeal. OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. USCA11 Case: 19-11257 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 05/17/2023 Page: 3 of 3
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: Katrina, 10 years laterPublished Aug. 28, 2015
                        
                        
                        Air Force News Service
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – Air Force TV has released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
Ten years ago, the Airmen of Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, faced one of the greatest tests of the American spirit as Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Where there were once hopes and dreams, Katrina left devastation and destruction. But through the wreckage of it all, the survivors persevered.Airmen 



Airman 



Air Force 



Air Force TV 



AFTV 



military 



BLUE 



Katrina 



hurricane 



natural disaster 



Keesler AFB 



Katrina10 



resiliency 



AETC
News United States Air Force
 Pilot killed in Middle East F-16 crashPublished Dec. 1, 2014
                **TAMPA, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                A U.S. Air Force pilot was killed when an F-16 Fighting Falcon crashed in a noncombat-related incident Nov. 30 at approximately 11 p.m. EST. The aircraft was returning to its base in the Middle East shortly after take-off. The crash did not occur in Iraq or Syria.
First responders remain on the scene. The cause of the incident is under investigation. It is the U.S. military's policy to defer identification for 24 hours to allow for notification of next-of-kin. Additional details will be released when they become available.*(Information courtesy of a U.S. Central Command News Release)*Central Command 



accident 



F-16 Fighting Falcon Related Links
        U.S. Central Command
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3651

_____________________________

JOHN T. HUGHES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

April 3, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2023).

B.L. THOMAS, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Christina Piotrowski, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 30, 2013

p0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2013

147170 & (14)(15)

PEOPLE OF THE ST ATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147170

COA: 314381

Calhoun CC: 09

- 003157

- FC

SYLVESTER B. HUGULEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand a nd

the motion for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jay S. Amato, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViewpointCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officerss and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;   (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and   (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and   (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Dated: May 14, 2003 By:  /s/ JAY S. AMATO    Jay S. Amato    President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.37

                    AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED
                               SECURITY AGREEMENT

      THIS AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SECURITY AGREEMENT (this
"Amendment"), is dated as of July 31, 2003 and amends the Second Amended and
Restated Security Agreement (the "A&R Security Agreement"), dated as of May 28,
2003, entered into by and among Diomed, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Grantor"), Gibralt US, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Designated Note
Purchaser" and the "Designated Lender") for the benefit of the Secured Parties
referred to therein. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have
their respective meanings set forth in the First Exchange Agreement, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise.

      In consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the A&R Security Agreement
as follows:

      1. Section 8.1 of the A&R Security Agreement is hereby amended by deleting
the phrase "July 31, 2003" therein and inserting in lieu of such phrase
"November 15, 2003."

      2. All other terms and conditions of the First Exchange Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.

                            [Signature page follows.]

<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the Grantor
and the Designated Note Purchaser and the Designated Lender as of the date set
forth above.

                                        DIOMED, INC.

                                        By:_____________________________________
                                        Name:  James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                        ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:

                                        GIBRALT US, INC.,
                                             As the Designated Note Purchaser
                                             and the Designated Lender

                                        By:_____________________________________
                                        Name:  Johnny Ciampi
                                        Title: Authorized Person
#### Clare & Foster, Inc., Appellant, *v.*Diamond S. Electric Co., Appellee.

(Decided October 7, 1940.)

*377*Mr. H. L.*Peeke, for appellant.

*Messrs. Flynn, Frohman, Buckingham, Py <& Kruse,*for appellee.

Carpenter, J.

This action started in the Municipal Court of Sandusky, which entered judgment for the defendant for the reason that plaintiff is a New York corporation which has failed to obtain a license to do business in Ohio. On appeal and trial *de novo,*the Common Pleas Court entered the same judgment and this appeal on questions of law was perfected.

The defendant filed a motion in the Common Pleas Court to dismiss the appeal to it and claimed such appeal on law and fact did not lie. This motion was overruled, and defendant now urges that the Common Pleas Court did not have jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 1579-253, General Code, a part of the Municipal Court of Sandusky Act, when enacted in 1917, meant what we now call appeal on questions of law and fact and resulted in a trial *de novo. Saslaw*v. *Weiss,*133 Ohio St., 496, 14 N. E. (2d), 930, construing a similar section in this respect, Section 1579-534, General Code, says it still means that and is not superseded by the Appellate Procedure Act. The Common Pleas Court had jurisdiction and properly overruled the motion to dismiss the appeal.

It is undisputed that the plaintiff was a New York corporation and had not obtained a license to do business in Ohio. This gives rise to the only question in this case, one of fact, whether the plaintiff was “doing business” in Ohio within the meaning of the Foreign Corporation Act, Sections 8625-1 *et seq.,*General Code.

Looking to the contract between the parties which is the basis of this action, it appears that defendant signed and plaintiff accepted an order on one of plaintiff’s, blanks directing it to send defendant 52 *378mats and copy for advertising, and agreed to pay the sum sued for “for our right to use the above mats and copy for one year only” in Sandusky. Plaintiff also agreed not to “give anyone else any right to use the above mats and copy in the above specified place, during said period.”

Clearly, this was not the sale of a commodity; it was the sale of the right to use certain articles and the service of advertising copy prepared by plaintiff. The title to the articles remained in the plaintiff, and thereby it continued to have an interest in the property as it served defendant in its business in Ohio. The plaintiff sold to defendant a service — an advertising service — -much like that in *National Sign Co.*v. *Maccar Cleveland Sales Co.,*33 Ohio App., 89, 91, 168 N. E., 758. On the same principle is *Short Films Syndicate Co.*v. *Standard Film Service Co.,*39 Ohio App., 79, 176 N. E., 893.

Thus plaintiff was doing business in Ohio and, under Section 8625-25, General Code, it did not have capacity to maintain this action, and the lower courts did not err in so holding and the judgment below is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Overmyer and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
  Gracious God, whom to know is life's ultimate purpose, whom to serve 
is our deepest joy, and whom to trust is our only lasting peace, we 
commit to You the work of this Senate. You have made praise the secret 
of opening our minds and hearts to You, the key to unlocking the 
mysteries of Your will, and the source of turning difficulties into 
opportunities. When we praise You for even life's tight places and 
trying people, we are strangely liberated. You have made praise the 
highest form of commitment of our needs.
  So we begin this week with praise to You for the blessings we could 
neither deserve or earn and for the problems in which You will reveal 
Your supernatural guidance and power.
  We dedicate this week to be one in which we constantly give You 
praise in all things, especially the perplexities that force us to seek 
You and Your limitless grace. In Your Holy Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

ROBERT TOLAND, II, 

 Respondent 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 1507 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

104 DB 2009 

Attorney Registration No. 57360 

(Chester County) 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2014, upon consideration of the 

Recommendation of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board dated 

September 3, 2014, the Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent is hereby 

granted pursuant to Rule 215(g), Pa.R.D.E., and it is 

 ORDERED that Robert Toland, II, is suspended on consent from the Bar of this 

Commonwealth for a period of three years retroactive to November 30, 2007, and he 

shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.
583 A.2d 341

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WAYNE ROBINSON.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 MacDill AFB hosts cross-service exercisesPublished Jan. 20, 2015
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Brandon Shapiro
                        
                        
                        6th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs
                **MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The 6th Air Mobility Wing here hosted a massive 300 sortie Navy F-18 pilot training exercise from Jan. 4-17.F-18 Hornet and Super Hornets from Strike-Fighter Squadron ONE ZERO SIX (VFA-106), a Navy training squadron, chose MacDill Air Force Base because of its top-notch accommodations, geographical location, and proximity to training specific complexes. This is the first of numerous cross-service exercises scheduled for 2015.VFA-106 is responsible for preparing the finest strike fighter aircrew and maintenance professionals for the fleet in support of combat operations around the world."The Deployed Unit Complex located at MacDill has great facilities that are able to accommodate our training, operations, and maintenance efforts," said Navy Lt. Nathan Miller, a VFA-106 instructor pilot. "MacDill is also an ideal location because of it nearness to the Avon Park Range Complex, where all of our training takes place."The large scale exercise focused the nearly 300 flights around the air-to-ground training phase, where new pilots tested their skills at a bombing range. During their immersion, the VFA-106 was able to successfully introduce future F/A-18 pilots to the critical training that will be demanded of them once they go to their operational squadrons."MacDill AFB supported our operations and personnel with extreme professionalism and dedication," Miller said. "We were able to create a great working relationship that allowed us to maximize our training efforts and pave the way for future operations with the 6th (Air Mobility Wing)."On top of the success of the training exercise was an overwhelming positive outcry from the local community."With such a fantastic community support system, we want to do all we can to give back. For some, all it takes is a couple of weeks of the world's finest pilots showcasing their second-to-none skills," said 2nd Lt. Patrick Gargan, the 6th AMW media operation officer. "The 6th Air Mobility Wing is proud to host such events that serve so many valuable purposes. We are extremely excited at this year's upcoming schedule of exercises."Florida 



joint exercise 



Navy 



sortie 



Strike-Fighter Squadron ONE ZERO SIX 



F-18 Hornet 



MacDill Air Force Base