alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 16, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11112

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 89-00178-CR-J-20

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

RONNIE DAWSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(November 16, 2009)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Maurice C. Grant, II, appointed counsel for Ronnie Dawson in this appeal

from the denial of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, has moved to withdraw from

further representation and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire

record confirms that there are no issues of arguable merit on appeal. Therefore,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of Dawson’s 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.

2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jason Marlin Crook, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02610-PHX-JAT (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation1 of the Magistrate 

Judge recommending that Defendant Cato be dismissed without prejudice as a result of 

Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 219). It appears the Clerk’s office 

treated Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 213) as a notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed 

Defendant Cato from this action on December 12, 2017. Nonetheless, the Report and 

Recommendation (to which no party objected) remains pending before this Court.2

 As a 

result, 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 1

 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

2

 It is “clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (part of Doc. 219) is 

accepted. 

 Dated this 27th day of March, 2018.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof IGS Capital Group Limited (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kok Seng Yeap, Director and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatbased on my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 17, 2018

 

 

/s/ Kok Seng Yeap
Case 2:16-cr-00103-DJH Document 1 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Herman Kram, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Kay Trimming Company, Respondent, *v.*“ John ” Adler, First Name Fictitious, Unknown to Plaintiff, Caretaker of the Premises 44 West Twenty-second Street, Manhattan, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 10, 1925.

Replevin — contempt for failure to deliver goods — defendant not guilty where goods had been leased to another and were in his possession.

The defendant, in an action of replevin, is not guilty of contempt on the ground that he failed to deliver to the marshal the goods replevied, where it appears that at the time the demand was made the goods were in the actual possession of a third person under a lease.

*180Appeal by defendant from an order of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District, adjudging him in contempt of court.

*Samuel M. Rivelson,*for the appellant.

*Saul Grover Wlodaver,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff issued a requisition in replevin which, with the summons and complaint in the appropriate action were served upon defendant by a marshal. The marshal’s return shows, and the testimony demonstrates, that the chattels mentioned in the requisition had been leased to a third party.

Under those circumstances defendant could not have been guilty of contempt of court for having *“*wilfully disobeyed the writ of replevin * * * in that he failed to turn over [to the marshal] * * * the chattels therein described and enumerated.”

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.
1-3Q-IS

.4haA- id as sen+ -to me cl\oou+

do

n\\\

X_ gnu?

toK^ X'm fttVher -to

3*

S\ms

■!

..•:

ca

-i ;L ::

ro -■■■■
#### J. J. Pritchott, &c., *v.*Wm. S. Humphrey.

Lien Bond — Assignment—Lien for Unpaid Purchase Money.

The assignor of a title bond must not, in the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary, be regarded as having reserved his right to retain a lien, unless it be stated in the assignment what part of the consideration remains unpaid in express terms.

Same.

It not appearing that the assignment of a bond, contained an express stipulation for reserving a lien for! the note', nor even that a purchaser thereunder had notice, held, that no lien would attach thereon.

APPEAL PROM MUHLENBERG CIRCUIT COURT.

October 26, 1870.

*379*Eaves, for appellants.*

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Hardin :

H. D. Rotbrock, bolding by assignment from James W. Sullivan, tbe bond of John E. Reno for title to a store, bouse and lot, in bis possession, in South Carrollton, sold tbe property to L. W. Knicbolas, and transferred tbe bond by assignment to bim, and in consideration thereof, Knicbolas gave bis note to Rotbrock for $600, and tbe latter transferred the note by delivery to William S. Humphrey; and Knicbolas having sold tbe property to J. J. Pritcbott and Louis Robertson, and assigned tbe bond to them, this suit was brought by Humphrey, asserting and seeking to enforce a vendor’s lien on tbe property for bis debt. And tbe court having adjudged that relief and directed a sale of tbe property to satisfy tbe debt, Pritcbott and Robertson have appealed to this court.

It does not appear that tbe assignment of tbe bond from Rotbrock to Knicbolas contained any express stipulation for reserving a lien for tbe note in controversy, nor even that tbe appellants bad notice when they afterwards purchased tbe property and accepted Knicbolas’ assignment to them, that be bad not paid the consideration of tbe assignment of Rotbrock to bim.

Before tbe adoption of tbe Revised Statutes, tbe right of an assignor of a bond for title, to a lien for tbe consideration of bis assignment, as against a remote assignee of tbe same bond, with notice, was only recognized in analogy to tbe lien of a vendor by an absolute conveyance; and tbe same analogy being preserved, since tbe change in tbe mode of reserving liens affected by section 26, of chapter 80, of tbe Revised Statutes, tbe assignor of a title bond, must not in tbe absence of any express stipulation to tbe contrary, be regarded as having reserved bis right to retain a lien, unless it be stated in the assignment what part of tbe consideration remains unpaid in express terms (Taylor v. Ford, &c., 1 Bush, 44).

Tbe assignment of tbe bond, by Rotbrock to Knicbolas, therefore imparted no lien on tbe property which should have been enforced in this action.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is reversed and tbe cause remanded for a judgment not inconsistent with this opinion.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Measure Your Reaction Time","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WgMqYjgD0y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/measure-your-reaction-time\/\">Measure Your Reaction Time<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/measure-your-reaction-time\/embed\/#?secret=WgMqYjgD0y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Measure Your Reaction Time” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WgMqYjgD0y\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/edu_srch_measure_your_reaction_time.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":277}
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 865

To provide that Kentucky may not tax compensation paid to a resident

of Tennessee for services as a Federal employee at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. BRYANT (for himself and Mr. TANNER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that Kentucky may not tax compensation paid

to a resident of Tennessee for services as a Federal

employee at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AUTHORITY TO TAX

4 COMPENSATION PAID TO CERTAIN FEDERAL

5 EMPLOYEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111 of title 4, United

7 States Code, is amended—

8 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—’’ be9 fore ‘‘The United States’’ the first place it appears,

10 and
2

•HR 865 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(b) TREATMENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AT

4 FORT CAMPBELL.—Pay and compensation paid by the

5 United States for personal services as an employee of the

6 United States at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, shall be sub7 ject to taxation by the State of Kentucky or any political

8 subdivision thereof only if such employee is a resident of

9 such State or political subdivision.’’

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply to pay and compensation paid

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Louis La Rue, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00024-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon the Stipulation for Dismissal of Experian Information Solutions, Inc. With 

Prejudice (Doc. 26), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 26). The above-entitled matter is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. 

only, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED closing this matter. 

 Dated this 8th day of April, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00024-JJT Document 27 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 1
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 535

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a capital loss deduction

with respect to the sale or exchange of a principal residence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. FROST, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. NORTON, Mr.

DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GREEN, Mr. MCHUGH,

Mr. WYNN, Mr. WALSH, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. BARCIA,

Mrs. KELLY, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN,

and Mr. ROHRABACHER) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a

capital loss deduction with respect to the sale or exchange of a principal residence.

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

3 SECTION 1. CAPITAL LOSS DEDUCTION ALLOWED WITH RE4 SPECT TO SALE OR EXCHANGE OF PRINCIPAL

5 RESIDENCE.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 165 (re7 lating to limitation on losses of individuals) is amended
2

•HR 535 IH

1 by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (2), by striking

2 the period at the end of paragraph (3) and inserting ‘‘;

3 and’’, and by adding at the end the following new para4 graph:

5 ‘‘(4) losses arising from the sale or exchange of

6 the principal residence (within the meaning of sec7 tion 1034) of the taxpayer.’’

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply to sales and exchanges after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending

11 after such date.

Æ
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 20, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 20, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18I0205. THE CITY OF SAVANNAH v. KAREN ADAMS et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: STCV1700660
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Peter Coen","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M5nssxrR39\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/peter-coen\/\">Peter Coen<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/peter-coen\/embed\/#?secret=M5nssxrR39\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Peter Coen” — NASA\" data-secret=\"M5nssxrR39\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/portrait-lrc-2022-0623-h1-p-peter-coen-000218.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Case 2:01-cr-00072-EHC Document 37 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I,
R. Kipp deVeer, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ares Capital Corporation;

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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 22, 2017



/s/ R. KIPP DEVEER R. Kipp deVeer Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)


---



QuickLinks
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 77

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to limit expenditures

in House of Representatives elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 7, 1997

Mr. POMEROY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

limit expenditures in House of Representatives elections.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES IN HOUSE OF

4 REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS.

5 Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act

6 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end

7 the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(i) A candidate for the office of Representative in,

9 or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress
2

•HR 77 IH

1 may not make expenditures with respect to an election for

2 such office, which, in the aggregate, exceed $300,000.’’.

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with

5 respect to elections occurring after 1998.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1
          - [TD 9696]
          - RIN 1545-BH60

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Final regulations; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 9696) that were published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 1, 2014 (79 FR 59112). The final regulations are relating to the deductibility of expenses for lodging when an individual is not travelling away from home (local lodging).                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective on November 3, 2014 and applicable beginning October 1, 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Ford, at (202) 317-7011 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The final regulations (TD 9696) that are the subject of this correction is under sections 162 and 262 of the Internal Revenue Code.

## Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations (TD 9696) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

## Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the final regulations (TD 9696), that are the subject of FR Doc. 2014-23306, are corrected as follows:

On page 59115, first column, the fourth line of the signature block, the language “Approved: August 22, 2013.” Is corrected to read “Approved: July 11, 2014.”

Martin V. Franks,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2014-26068 Filed 10-31-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P