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

No. 99-5577.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2001.

Before KENNEDY, Alan E. NORRIS, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

DefendanL-Appella.it William Lorenzo Butler was convicted by a jury on a two-count charge of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine *359base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine hydrochloride in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C). Butler filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the warrantless search of his vehicle, and the district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 686(b)(1)(B) and (C). Adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full, the district court denied Butler’s motion to suppress on the ground that Butler voluntarily consented to the search of his car.

After careful review of the record in this case, the applicable law, counsels’ briefs and arguments, and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not err in its determination that Butler voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle. Because the magistrate judge thoroughly and properly analyzed all of Butler’s contentions, we believe that the issuance of a full written opinion in this case would be dupli-cative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Erik Vonk,Chief Executive Officer of Gevity HR, Inc., hereby certify that: (a) the attached Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gevity HR, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gevity HR, Inc. 

 

Date: March 28, 2003 

 

/s/    ERIK VONK

----
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 157 

To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on the potential 

fuel savings from intelligent transportation systems that help businesses 

and consumers to plan their travel and avoid delays. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. HOLT (for himself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study on 

the potential fuel savings from intelligent transportation 

systems that help businesses and consumers to plan their 

travel and avoid delays. 

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 ‘‘Fuel Savings, Smarter 

5 Travel, and Efficient Roadways Act’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 157 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY OF FUEL SAVINGS FROM INTELLIGENT 

2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS. 

3 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall, in consultation 

5 with the Secretary of Transportation, report to Congress 

6 on the potential fuel savings from intelligent transpor7 tation systems that help businesses and consumers to plan 

8 their travel and avoid delays. These systems may include 

9 web-based real-time transit information systems, conges10 tion information systems, carpool information systems, 

11 parking information systems, freight route management, 

12 and traffic management systems. The report shall include 

13 analysis of fuel savings, analysis of system costs, assess14 ment of local, State, and regional differences in applica15 bility, and evaluation of case studies, best practices, and 

16 emerging technologies from both the private and public 

17 sector. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does 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; and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report . |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|           | Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A |                                            |
|----------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|           |                  |                                            |   |
| March 16, 2016 | By:                   | /s/ Matias I. Gaivironsky                  |   |
|           |                  | Matias I. Gaivironsky                           |   |
|           |                  | Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |   |

----
#### Wallis Landes & Co. v. H. H. Eichelberger.

(No. 1573.)

Appeal from Houston County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 133. *Evidence; exclusion of admissible, not ground for*reversal, *when.*The exclusion of admissible evidence is not ground for reversing the judgment, -when such evidence has been fully supplied on the trial by other evidence, so that it appears no injury could reasonably have resulted to the party who offered it by its exclusion. [WJ & W. Oon. Rep. § 1297.]

§ 134. *Damages; measure of, in wrongful issuance of an attachment; actual; injury to credit is not actual.*Where goods have been levied upon and sold under an attachment wrongfully issped, a just and fair measure of damage for the owner of the goods is the difference between the fair market value of the same at the time of the levy and the amount that -was realized upon their sale. [Drake on Attach. § 178.] In this case the defendant, by his plea in reconvention, claimed only *actual*damages. The court instructed the jury that, in estimating said damages, they might consider injury done to defendant’s credit. *Held,*error. Actual damages must be the natural, proximate result or consequence of the wrongful act. Remote or speculative damages, resulting from injuries to credit, business, character or feelings, cannot be recovered. [Drake on Attach. § 175; Field on Dam. § 559.] In'this state it is settled that injury to *credit*is not to be considered in estimating *actual*damages, but can only be considered in estimating exemplary damages. [Wallace v. Finberg, 46 Tex. 47; W. & W. *128Con. Rep. § 1216.] Darcy v. Turner, 46 Tex. 30, doos not conflict with this view. The question was not raised, discussed or determined in that case. It only decided that in that case the evidence did not support that item of damages.

March 12, 1884.

§ 135. *Charge; erroneous, need not he excepted to.*It is well settled by decisions prior to the Revised Statutes that an erroneous charge will not, in a civil case, be sufficient ground for reversal, when no exception is taken to it, nor additional nor counter charges asked, unless it clearly appears that the jury were misled by the charge given and complained of. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 413, 626, 710; Mills v. Ash, 16 Tex. 304; Cook v. Wooters, 42 Tex. 294.] But by article 1318 of the Revised Statutes, charges given by the court are to be regarded as excepted to, without the necessity of taking any bill of exceptions thereto. Were it not for this provision of the statute we would be inclined to hold that the erroneous charge alluded to should not reverse the judgment, because it does not clearly appear, from a consideration of the evidence, that the jury were misled thereby. But as, under the statute, the charge must b^ treated as excepted to, and as it had a direct bearing upon the issue of damages, and might have influenced the verdict of the jury, we cannot do otherwise than set aside the judgment because of the error.

Reversed and remanded.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David J. Poston, 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 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.





/s/
                David J. PostonDavid
                J. PostonVice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerOctober 31, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32.2 to the Form 10-Q 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) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.
#### Brian LeBOEUF, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D09-5509.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 3, 2010.

Brian LeBoeuf, pro se, Petitioner.

Kathleen Von Hoene, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Brian LeBoeuf seeks certiorari review of an order denying his petition for writ of mandamus. He argued in that petition, albeit not particularly artfully, that the Department of Corrections acted without statutory authority when it forfeited certain gain-time-and provisional credits following the revocation of his conditional medical release. The circuit court denied relief, finding that the challenged action was authorized by sections 944.28(1), 947.141, and 947.149, Florida Statutes. However, the circuit court’s ruling does not account for the fact that the 2,030-day forfeiture complained of by petitioner consisted of credits applied to a sentence imposed for an offense that predated the adoption of these forfeiture provisions, nor does it explain how these later enacted forfeiture statutes can be lawfully applied to petitioner. *See Larimore v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,*910 So.2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), *rev. denied,*905 So.2d 125 (Fla.2005).

Because the circuit court’s order does not address this issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand the matter for further proceedings. *See Lamb v. McNeil,*21 So.3d 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certio-rari is GRANTED, the order denying Le-Boeufs petition for writ of mandamus is QUASHED, and the matter is REMANDED to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1693 

To authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish a memorial on 

Federal land in the District of Columbia at Constitution Gardens previously approved to honor free persons and slaves who fought for independence, liberty, and justice for all during the American Revolution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Mr. COHEN, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. SIRES, Mrs. LOWEY, 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, and Mr. CLAY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize National Mall Liberty Fund D.C. to establish 

a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia 

at Constitution Gardens previously approved to honor 

free persons and slaves who fought for independence, 

liberty, and justice for all during the American Revolution. 

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 ‘‘National Liberty Me5 morial Act’’. 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1693 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDING. 

2 Congress finds that the contributions of free persons 

3 and slaves who fought during the American Revolution 

4 were of preeminent historical and lasting significance to 

5 the United States, as required by section 8908(b)(1) of 

6 title 40, United States Code. 

7 SEC. 3. THE NATIONAL LIBERTY MEMORIAL. 

8 Public Law 99–558 (40 U.S.C. 8903 note; 100 Stat. 

9 3144) is amended— 

10 (1) in section 1— 

11 (A) in the first sentence— 

12 (i) by striking ‘‘The Black Revolu13 tionary War Patriots Foundation is au14 thorized to establish a memorial’’ and in15 serting the following— 

16 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—National Mall Liberty Fund 

17 D.C. may establish a memorial (referred to in this Act 

18 as the ‘memorial’)’’; and 

19 (ii) by striking ‘‘Federal land in the 

20 District of Columbia and its environs’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘the Federal land in the District 

22 of Columbia described in subsection (b)’’; 

23 and 

24 (B) by striking the second sentence and in25 serting the following: 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1693 IH

1 ‘‘(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The Federal land re2 ferred to in subsection (a) is the portion of land at Con3 stitution Gardens, located on the south side of Constitu4 tion Lake and west of the island, that was previously se5 lected as the site for the memorial. 

6 ‘‘(c) APPLICABLE LAW.—The memorial shall be es7 tablished in accordance with chapter 89 of title 40, United 

8 States Code.’’; and 

9 (2) in section 2, by striking ‘‘The Black Revolu10 tionary War Patriots Foundation’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘National Mall Liberty Fund D.C.’’. 

Æ 


CCOLEMAN on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
<PAGE>

OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                   ---------------------------       ---------------------------
                                                     April 29,       April 30,         April 29,       April 30,
                                                       2001            2000              2001            2000
<S>                                                <C>               <C>                <C>           <C>
BASIC:

Net income (loss) available
          for common shareholders                  $(1,159,000)     $  284,000       $(3,373,000)     $ (266,000)
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding               5,866,000       5,846,000         5,858,000       5,838,000
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
Basic earnings (loss) per common share             $     (0.20)     $     0.05       $     (0.58)     $    (0.05)
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available
          for common shareholders                  $(1,159,000)     $  284,000       $(3,373,000)     $ (266,000)
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding               5,866,000       5,846,000         5,858,000       5,838,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                         -               9,000            --               -
                                                   -----------      ----------       -----------      ----------

Weighted average number
          of common shares outstanding               5,866,000       5,855,000         5,858,000       5,838,000
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
Diluted earnings (loss) per common share           $     (0.20)     $     0.05       $     (0.58)     $    (0.05)
                                                   ===========      ==========       ===========      ==========
</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Western Ohio Financial Corporation (the
Company) for the quarterly period ending
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Richard K. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to section 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
    result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Richard K. Smith

Name: Richard K. Smith


Chief Financial Officer


May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.






24.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00358

- CV

C ITY OF W HITE S ETTLEMENT , T EXAS , AND THE W HITE S ETTLEMENT E CONOMIC D EVELOPMENT C ORPORATION , Appellants

V

.
B ENJAMIN S. E MMONS , AND S OURCE C APITAL , LLC, Appellees §
§
§
§ On Appeal from the 48th District Court
of Tarrant County (048

- 288516

- 16)
September 27, 2018
Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT
This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’ s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s
judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. We reverse the trial court’s special
appearance order as to the City Claimants’ claims against Source Capital and as to
their fraud and negligent misrepre sentation claims against Emmons. We affirm the
trial court’s order granting Emmons’s special appearance on the breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, conversion, and TTLA

- violation claims.It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own cos ts of this appeal, for

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
By

__ /s/ Wade Birdwell

_______________ Justice Wade Birdwell
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2020

No. 04-20-00202-CV

MUSCULOSKELETAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS, LLC

Appellant

v.

JAR ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a Premier Medical Imaging,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-12957

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellee's Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Appellee's Brief is due October 23, 2020.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Adebayo O.T. FAYIGA, M.D., Appellant, v. Kyra Sophia CASSAGNOL, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D12-587.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 2012.

Adebayo O.T. Fayiga, M.D., in proper person.

Kyra Sophia Cassagnol, Rashad Ahmad Washington, Pollack & Rosen, and Mark E. Pollack, in proper persons.

Before SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ, and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

On July 28, 2012, this court ordered Adebayo O.T. Fayiga, M.D., to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions against him pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.410(a), including *1250prohibiting Dr. Fayiga from filing further appeals. Dr. Fayiga filed a timely response.

Upon consideration of the response and this court’s independent review of Dr. Fay-iga’s multiple filings in this court, Dr. Fay-iga hereby is barred from filing further pro se proceedings in this court arising out of lower tribunal number 06-27890. We direct the clerk of this court to reject any further filings on Dr. Fayiga’s behalf arising from lower tribunal number 06-27890, unless signed by a member of the Florida Bar.

Additionally, good cause having not been shown, in accordance with Rule 9.410(a), we remand to the trial court for imposition of attorney fees.

So ordered.