alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7579

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SIMON CHOW, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-219, CA-96-1641-AM) Submitted: April 10, 2000 Decided: May 1, 2000Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Simon Chow, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Simon Chow seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion. See National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Chow did not establish any extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. See Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 202 (1950). Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11,746.

#### Jones *v.*Lindsay.

*"Witnesses.*— Order *of Court Limiting Number.*— Objection.—Practice.—Where the trial court, before evidence is introduced, orders that each party shall be limited to three witnesses to one fact, objection must be made at the time if either party desires or expects to introduce more than three witnesses; and if the defendant, without objecting to the order, *219waits until his adversary has offered his evidence in conformity thereto, he tacitly accepts it as a rule governing the case, and can not exceed the limited number by offering to pay the costs.

Filed Nov. 19, 1884.

From the Grant Circuit Court.

*A. Steele*and *R. T. St. John,*for appellant.

*H. Brownlee, for*appellee.

Elliott, C. J.

Before any evidence was introduced by either of the parties, the court, as the record recites, ordered and announced to the parties that each party *“*would be limited to three witnesses to any one fact.” No objection was made to this order, and the appellee having introduced his evidence, the appellant introduced three witnesses to one fact, and offered the testimony of another to the same effect, proposing, at the time, to, pay the costs, but the court, on the motion of the appellee, refused to permit the witness to testify.

If the appellant had objected to the order of the court at the time it was announced, or had then suggested that she proposed to introduce more than three witnesses to one fact, ■we should have had a very different case .from that which the record actually presents. Instead of objecting, she waited until the appellee had introduced his evidence, and then, for the first time, objected to the order of the court, and by adopting this course, she tacitly acquiesced in the ruling, and accepted it as governing the case. It would be unjust to permit a party to wait until his adversary has delivered all of his evidence in conformity to the rule declared at the opening of the case, and then violate the rule laid down by the court by introducing more than the number of witnesses specified by the order. If counsel had desired or expected to introduce more than three witnesses they should have objected to the order at the time it was announced, or have suggested their intention to call a greater number of witnesses.

There is gvidence supporting the verdict, and a long settled rule forbids our.interference.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic! Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, William R.Wolff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| May 7, 2004 |                    |
|-------------|-------------------------|
|        |                    |
|        |                    |
|        | /s/ William R. Wolff    |   |
|        | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00122-CR

Ignacio SALAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-12-00129-CRK

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED June 9, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
#### G., H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. A. M. Gildea.

(No. 3054.)

June 21, 1884.

Appeal from Kinney County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 271. *Damages; article $¡$¡66, R. 8., does not apply to.*This suit was upon a claim for §154.50 for damages alleged by appellee to have been sustained by him by reason of delay in the shipment and delivery of a tent, frame and poles, shipped on appellant’s railroad. The claim was sworn to, and introduced in evidence on the trial, and was the only evidence offered in support of plaintiff’s cause of action. It was. objected to by appellant when offered in evidence, and the objection was overruled. Judgment was rendered for the appellee for the full amount of his claim, and for costs. Being for damages, the claim was not such an “open account,” in contemplation of the statute [R. S. art. 2266], as that it could be made evidence by the affidavit of the party sufficient to prove the debt. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 64, 416, 427.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### Willard L. LOWNDES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D12-1737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2012.

Willard. L. Lowndes, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The appellant asserts an entitlement to prison credit for time served on the incarcerative portion of his split sentence against the prison sentence imposed upon him for violating probation. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

"When a defendant is resentenced for violating probation, he is entitled to prison credit for all time served on that charge prior to resentencing. *Nix v. State,*941 So.2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); *see also*§ 921.0017, Fla. Stat. (2009) (upon revocation of probation the trial court shall determine amount of time spent in jail between date of arrest as probation violator and sentence date, and “shall direct the Department of Corrections to compute and apply credit for all other time served previously on the prior sentence for the offense for which the offender is being recommitted”). If a defendant is entitled to prison credit the trial court must check the *1272box on the sentencing form indicating the prisoner is entitled to prison credit. *Cf. Armstrong v. State,*846 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); *Corpus v. State,*744 So.2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). After this is done the trial courts responsibility is over and the appellant must raise any problem he has with the application of the prison credit with the Department of Corrections. *Armstrong,*846 So.2d at 1227. Here, the appellant alleges that the trial court never checked the box to award the appellant prison credit. *See Swain v. State,*845 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (remanding the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion for the trial court to check the prison credit box so that the appellant would be awarded time served on the charges prior to resentenc-ing). The trial court failed to attach any documents indicating that the appellant was awarded prison credit, or that the appellant was not entitled to it. On remand, if it appears that the proper amount of credit was awarded or the appellant waived his entitlement to credit, the trial court must attach documents supporting that conclusion. *See Wells v. State,*751 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that although a defendant can waive credit for time served as part of a plea agreement, such waiver must be clearly shown on the record).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

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


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HR 1722 RFS

1 SECTION 1. LEONARD W. HERMAN POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca 

4 Raton, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
No. 13,255.

#### Williams et al. *v.*Owen et al.

*Deed.*— Grant *of Income of Land.*— Effect *of.*— The general rule is, that the grant of the income of land carries an estate in the land itself.

*Same.*— Life-Estate.—Deed *Construed.*— A grantor conveyed and warranted to A., B. and O., *“*and *Z.*to have his support off of said farm during his lifetime,” certain land. After the description was the following: “ It is understood that rents and profits of this farm go to maintain my son, Z. At his death my grandchildren are to have the same in fee simple, after my death, as above stated.”

*Held,*that Z. took a life-estate in the land.

From the Posey Circuit Court.

*W. P Edson*and *F.*D. *Wimmer,*for appellants.

*E. M. Speneer*and *O. V. Menzies,*for appellees.

*71Elliott, J.

The question in this case is whether Zeph,ania Williams had such an estate in the land granted to him by William Williams as authorized the sheriff to seize and sell it upon execution. The deed, omitting the formal parts, reads thus:

> “ This Indenture Witnesseth, that William Williams and Irene Williams, liis wife, of Posey county, State of Indiana, convey and warrant to William Ennis Williams, James Ur-. bane Williams, and George I. Williams, Jr., and Zephania Williams to have his support off of said farm during his lifetime, of Vanderburgh county, in the State of Indiana, for the sum of one dollar, the following real estate, in Posey county, in the State of Indiana, to wit: The east half of the southwest quarter of section thirty-one (31), township four *(4)*south, range fourteen (14) west. It is understood that rents and profits of this farm go to maintain my son, Z. Williams. At his death my grandchildren are to have the same in fee simple, after my death, as above stated.”

It is a familiar rule that all the parts of a deed must be construed together, and, if it can be avoided, no part shall be deemed ineffective.

The clause in the" deed before us which reads thus : *“*At his death my grandchildren are to have the same in fee simple, after my death, as above stated,” is sufficient to vest in Zephania Williams a life-estate, and it is not inconsistent with the -other provisions of the deed. It is, in truth, consistent with them, for the general rule is, that the grant of the income of land carries an estate in the land itself. *Reed*v. *Reed,*9 Mass. 372; *Fox*v. *Phelps,*17 Wend. 393; 2 Redfield Wills (2d ed.), 334; 3 Washburn Real Property (5th ed.), pp. 405, 565.

There is, therefore, a grant of an estate in the land itself, for, taking all the provisions of the deed together, it is clear, as Kenyon, C. J., said in *Rex*v. *Inhabitants, etc.,*4 T. R. 177, 181, that they show *“*that the whole estate was intended to be reserved to him.”

*72Filed Oct. 24, 1888.

The case of *Stout*v. *Dunning,*72 Ind. 343, carries the rule much farther thau we are required to do here, and we can not reverse this judgment without overruling that case, which we are not inclined to do.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60492-60493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35423]


Freightcar Short Line, Inc.--Acquisition and Operation 
Exemption--Line of Cornhusker Railways, LLC

    FreightCar Short Line, Inc. (FCSL), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and 
operate approximately 5.00 miles of rail line (Line) owned by 
Cornhusker Railways, LLC (CHR).\1\ The Line is located just west of 
Grand Island, Neb., extending between a connection with BNSF Railway 
Company (BNSF) at West Airport Road near BNSF milepost 103.55 in Ovina, 
Neb., and a connection with Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) at 
County Road 27 near UP milepost 154.50 in Alda, Neb.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FreightCar Rail Services, LLC (FCRS), an affiliate of FCSL, 
has executed an Asset Purchase Agreement with CHR and CHR's parent 
for acquisition of the Line but is assigning its right to acquire 
and operate the Line to FCSL.
    \2\ Prior to 2005, the Line was private track associated with a 
U.S. Army ordinance plant. In 2004, the Line was acquired by DTE 
Rail Services, Inc. (DTERS), for use in the construction and 
operation of a railcar repair facility being developed on the site. 
In 2005, DTERS transferred the Line to its affiliate, CHR, to 
provide common carrier service for other potential shippers who 
might locate on the former Army site. See Cornhusker Rys., LLC--Acq. 
and Oper. Exemp.--Rail Line of DTE Rail Services, Inc., FD 34719 
(STB served July 20, 2005).

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

[[Page 60493]]

    FCSL certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the 
transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III 
rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on or after October 
14, 2010, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the 
exemption was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35423, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Thomas J. Litwiler, 29 North Wacker Drive, 
Suite 920, Chicago, Ill. 60606.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 27, 2010.

    By the Board.
Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010-24583 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Austin L. Roberts, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay Banks of Virginia Inc.;

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;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s), and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act, Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: March 22, 2006



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III                                  
|Austin L. Roberts, III President and Chief Executive
Officer



51
EXHIBIT No. 32.2

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert S. Kergan, Chief Financial Officer, of Winmax Trading Group, Inc.,
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005
      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 Winmax
      Trading Group, Inc.







                                                /s/ Robert S. Kergan
                                                ----------------------------
                                                Robert S. Kergan
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Dated: June 23, 2006
EXHIBIT 21.1

              SUBSIDIARIES OF TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.
                              AS OF MARCH 18, 1998



                        Alabama Fox & Hound, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Colorado, Inc.
                        TENT Finance, Inc.
                        Bailey's Sports Grille, Inc.
                        F & H Restaurant Corp.
                        F & H Restaurant of Georgia, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Illinois, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Indiana, Inc.
                        F & H of Iowa, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Kansas, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Michigan, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Missouri, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Nebraska, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Ohio, Inc.
                        Pennsylvania Fox & Hound, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound of Tennessee, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound, Inc.
                        Fox & Hound II, Inc.
                        F & H Dallas, L.P.
                        Fox & Hound Club (non-profit)
                        Midway Entertainment, Ltd.
                        N. Collins Entertainment, Ltd.
                        505 Entertainment, Ltd.
                        N. Collins Beverage, Inc.
                        505 Beverage, Inc.
#### Laurentina KOCIK, M.D., Inphynet South Broward, Inc., Jason Strong, M.D., and Inpatient Clinical Solutions, Inc., Appellants, v. Lisa STRONG and Donald Strong, individually and as natural parents and guardians of Jesse Strong and as minor children, Appellees.

Nos. 4D09-896, 4D09-1010.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 2011.

Geoffrey B. Marks of Billbrough & Marks, P.A., and James J. Nosieh of McGrane, Nosieh & Ganz, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellants Laurentina Kocik, M.D., and Inphynet South Broward, Inc.

Mark L. Rosen of Lubell & Rosen, L.L.C., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants Jason Strong, M.D., and Inpatient Clinical Solutions, Inc.

Edna L. Caruso of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., John A. Shipley and Jack P. Hill of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Ship-ley, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Robert W. Kelley of Kelley Uustal, P.L.C, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey,*749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999).

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.