alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **2 -**  **6439**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHN ANTHONY FRILANDO, a/k/a Chino Frilando , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. C. Weston Houck , Senior District Judge. ( 4:97

- cr - 00084

- CWH

- 1 )

Submitted : May 31, 2012 Decided: June 6, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Anthony Frilando , Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preceden t in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Anthony Frilando appeals the district court ’ s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006)
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we a ffirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Frilando , No. 4:97

- cr - 00084

- CWH

- 1 (D.S.C. Feb. 29, 2012) ; see United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, 251

– 52 (4th Cir. 2009 ) (holding that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize sentence below minimum of amended Guidelines range); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(b)(2) (2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
KOGER EQUITY DOES NOT FILE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THESE NOT
PROVIDED. 5-02 (9), 5-02 (21)
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                       231
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         613,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        203,044
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           236
<OTHER-SE>                                     363,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   584,666
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,072
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                       815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,887
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,386
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
        

</TABLE>
#### Gerry Lee ROUSE, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kermit TENNIS, Police Officer, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-7083.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

*878Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr., Appellant pro se. Melvin Wayne Ringer, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Gerry Lee Rouse, Sr. appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Rouse v. Tennis,*No. CA-03-739-2 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2004). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 20(b), 1 MONTANA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

### 1 ORDER ) 

### NOV 09 2000
This Court has determined that it is necessary to amend Rule 20(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to require service of appealbriefs on the Attorney General’s office in termination of parental rights and abused, dependent or neglected children cases. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority grantedthis Court by Article VII, Section 2(3) of the Montana Constitution, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following underlined language is added amending Rule 20(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure; such amendments shall be
(b) Service of all papers required.
. . . In criminal casesappealedby the defendantand in aupeals relatin? to termination of parentalrights and abused, deoendent or neglected children cases,all transcripts, briefs, motions, and other papers shall be served on both the county attorney and the attorney general. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is directedto provide copies of this Order to GregPetesch, Code Commissioner,

Legislative Services

Division; to TheDistrict Court Judges

of the State

of Montana; to each

Clerk of the District Court of the State of Montana; to James

H. Goetz, Chairof theAdvisoryCommission on Rulesof Civil and

AppellateProcedure; to the Division of Child and Family Services of the Montana Department of Public Health and HumanServices;to George Bousliman, Executive Director of the StateBar of Montana, with
a requestthat this order be publishedin the next availableissueof the Montana Lawyer, andbe posted on the State Bar of Montana web cite (www.montanabar.org); to the Judith

Meadows, State Law Librarian, with the request that shepost this order on the Montana Law Library web cite (www.lawlibrary.state.mt.us); to West Group; to StateReporterPublishing Company;andto the Office of theAttorney General.

4 DATED this g-day of November, 2000.

Justices

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAY A. HELLER, ) 

 ) Case No. 1:20-cv-05220 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Hon. Judge Mary M. Rowland 

 v. ) 

 ) 

CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, L.L.C. )

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

 

 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 Now comes the Plaintiff, JAY A. HELLER, by and through his attorneys, and respectfully 

requests the Court enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Defendant has not yet filed an answer. 

Dated: December 3, 2020 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

JAY A. HELLER 

By: /s/ David B. Levin 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Illinois Attorney No. 6212141 

 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 

 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 

 Chicago, IL 60604 

 Phone: (224) 218-0882 

 Fax: (866) 633-0228 

 dlevin@toddflaw.com 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-05220 Document #: 10 Filed: 12/03/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:19
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on December 3, 2020 a copy of the foregoing Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal With Prejudice was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation 

of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. 

 

 /s/ David B. Levin 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:20-cv-05220 Document #: 10 Filed: 12/03/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:20
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3817

To ensure that certain areas are eligible for rural housing assistance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2004

Mr. RENZI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL

To ensure that certain areas are eligible for rural housing 

assistance.

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 ‘‘Rural Housing Equity 

5 Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Agriculture shall consider the City of Casa 

9 Grande, Arizona, as meeting the eligibility requirements 
2

•HR 3817 IH 

1 for loans and grants programs in the Rural Development 

2 mission area.

Æ
## NO. 12-09-00010-CV IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S

§ APPEAL F

ROM THE 145TH IN THE INTERE ST OF J.H., A CH

ILD § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF § NA CO GD OC

HES CO UN TY

, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM This appea l is being dismi ssed, as to Appellant J.H. only, beca use J.H. failed, afte r notice, to file a doc keting statement. The judgment wa s signed on Dec ember 8, 2008, and J.H. filed a

notice of appe al on Dec ember

22, 2008. J.H.’s docketing statement i n this case was due to have been filed at the time the appe al was p er fe ct ed , i .e., De cembe r 22, 2008. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 2

. 1

. O n J a n u ar y 9 , 2 0 0 9 , th is c o u rt reque sted J.H. to file her

docketing stateme nt within ten days if she had not a lrea dy filed it. When J.H . failed to file the docketing st atement, on April 8, 2009, this court issued a sec ond no tic e a dv isi ng he r that th e do c ke tin g s ta te me nt w a s p a st d ue a ndgiv ing he r u nti l A pril 2 0, 20 09 to comply with rule 32.1. The noti ce further provided that failure to comply with this second notice wo uldre su lt i n th e app e a l be ing pr e se nte d f or dis mis sa l in a c c or da nc e wi th Te xa s Rule of Ap pe llate Procedur e 42.3. The deadline e stablished by this second notice ha s expired, and J.H. has not re sp on de d. Ac c or din gly , th is a pp e a l, a s to J. H. on ly, is dismiss ed

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c). The appea l, as to R.H., remains on this court’s doc ket. Opinion delivere d April 28, 2009. P an el consi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(PUBLISH)
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 65

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. BURTON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Oversight

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight in the One Hundred

Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Government

4 Reform and Oversight (hereinafter in this resolution re5 ferred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of

6 all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable

7 accounts of the House of Representatives for committee

8 salaries and expenses, not more than $16,220,572 for the

9 One Hundred Fifth Congress.
2

•HRES 65 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $7,902,573 shall be available

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

5 noon on January 3, 1997, and ending immediately

6 before noon on January 3, 1998; and

7 (2) not more than $8,317,999 shall be available

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at

9 noon on January 3, 1998, and ending immediately

10 before noon on January 3, 1999.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Oversight.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Oversight.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          THREE MONTH PERIOD                  NINE MONTH PERIOD
                                                                          ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,                 ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                       ------------------------            ------------------------
                                                                          2001           2000                 2001           2000
                                                                       ----------     ---------            ---------      ---------
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>                  <C>            <C>
EARNINGS PER COMMON AND DILUTIVE
  POTENTIAL COMMON SHARE:
  Net Income                                                            $ 8,006         $ 9,346              $25,344        $20,541
                                                                        =======         =======              =======        =======

  Shares:
  Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding -- Basic                                        26,865          26,710               26,872         26,707
   Effect of dilutive securities (a):
      Stock options                                                          47             210                   16            284
                                                                        -------         -------              -------        -------
        Adjusted common shares -- Diluted                                26,912          26,920               26,888         26,991
                                                                        =======         =======              =======        =======

EARNINGS PER SHARE -- DILUTED                                           $  0.30         $  0.35              $  0.94        $  0.76
                                                                        =======         =======              =======        =======
</TABLE>

(a)      Shares issuable were derived using the "Treasury Stock Method" for all
         dilutive potential shares.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORWOOD PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MAY 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                             206
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                       676
<INVENTORY>                                     35,462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,841
<PP&E>                                          35,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,723
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,029
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,709
<SALES>                                        140,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,300
<CGS>                                          101,656
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,936
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,740
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,542
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,542
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
January 29, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDRE OSAGIE, Appellant

NO. 14-13-01138-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit21**

Maui Land &Pineapple Company, Inc. - SubsidiariesSubsidiariesAs of December 31, 2006
| **Name**                               | ** ** | **State of  Incorporation** | ** ** | **Percentage  of Ownership** | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
| Maui Pineapple  Company, Ltd.          |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua Land  Company, Ltd.            |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua Realty Company,  Ltd.          |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua  Advertising Company, Ltd.     |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua Water  Company, Ltd.           |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua Waste  Treatment Company, Ltd. |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Honolua  Plantation Land Company, Ltd. |       | Hawaii                           |       | 100                               |       |
| Kapalua Bay  Holdings, LLC             |       | Delaware                         |       | 51                                |       |
| Kapalua Bay, LLC                       |       | Delaware                         |       | 100                               |       |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0302 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRANDON JAMES LEWIS TOLLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until January 3, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 24 2021

11/24/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0302
#### James A. Lord v. M. Price Walker.

*Lease*— Condition *of re-eniry.*

'A three years’ lease of a farm stipulated that if the land were sold fora, certain sum the tenant should immediately surrender possession on being reimbursed for his labor and crops ; it farther provided that if the landlord did not return to his farm to occupy it himself the tenant was to have the privilege of continuing to farm the premises, as heretofore. *Held,*that in summary proceedings to recover possession for violation of the provisions of the lease the return of the-landlord was properly treated as on the same footing as a sale to a third person, and that on coming in at the end of the second year-after three months’ notice, and offering to pay for labor and crops,, the landlord had a right to resume possession.

Error to Eaton.

Submitted Jan. *4.*

Decided Jan. 10.

Proceedings under Comp. L. cli. 211 to recover possession of land. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

, *Cobb <& Ely*for appellant. -

*jUuggett <& Shriner*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Lord recovered possession in summary proceedings against defendant for violations of the provisions of a lease. The lease was in its preliminary portions a, lease for three years at an annual rent of $35. There was,. : however, a further provision expressly declaring that in case-the land was sold for $900, defendant would immediately surrender possession on being reimbursed for his labor and crops. There was also a further provision “that if the farm is not sold, or if I, J. A. Lord, does not return to my farm to occupy it myself, he, M. P. Walker, is to have the privilege to continue, have and to farm said farm to his own pleasement as heretofore.”

The court below held that the return of Lord to occupy the farm himself was indicated as standing on the same footing with a sale to a third person, and subject to the *607same condition, and that on coming in at the end of the, second year after three months’ notice, and paying or offering to pay for labor and crops, Lord had a right to resume possession.

The entire lease must be construed together, and we think that this construction was correct. The contingency of Lord’s returning to occupy his farm in person was distinctly within the minds of the parties, and the condition is either senseless, or it means what the 'circuit judge says it did.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.