alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

CANDY ANN REYMUNDO 09-000064-001

10641-003

8-26-2009

Pro Se

✔

✔

135 + 12 (enhancement) 108 months + 12 months

8-26-2009

2-27-2015

11-1-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.02.27 09:36:39 -06'00'

Case 1:09-cr-00064-CG-C Document 97 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 1
Fundamentals of Standards and 

Conformity Assessment

Training for all levels of government – educating 

agencies on the role of standards

NIST offers interactive workshops and seminars for federal, state, and 

local government agencies on the fundamentals of standards, conformity 

assessment, and related topics. SCO can create a custom training or 

event tailored to meet your agency’s needs. 

As standards have become an increasingly vital component of many 

government agency programs, the need for discussion on important 

topics in standards setting and use has also grown. Agencies need to be 

familiar with the laws, regulations and guidance that collectively direct 

Federal agencies to participate in the development and use of standards 

to carry out policy objectives and meet their agency’s mission. 

Understanding the standards development process and being prepared to 

effectively participate are essential. 

Educating agencies on the role of standards

About the Standards Coordination Office

Your first stop for federal standards information

NIST’s Standards Coordination Office (SCO) provides standards and 

conformity assessment expertise and services in support of government 

and industry. SCO staff works closely with U.S. industry, standards 

developers, other government agencies, and leaders in the global 

standards community to build a standards infrastructure that supports 

innovation and helps businesses thrive. 

SCO offers a number of online resources and trainings to help agencies 

and industry navigate the standards process. Learn more at 

https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov. 

Training areas include:

• Overview of standards fundamentals, 

development, and conformity 

assessment

• Trade agreements

• Effective agency participation in 

standards setting

SCO in action: Standards 

Simulation Provides 

Interactive, Real-Life Learning

Setting Standards: A Simulation Exercise in 

Strategy and Cooperation in Standardization 

Processes is an exercise in which 

participants negotiate standards for a 

fictional, next-generation technology.

The simulation explores the challenges and 

opportunities in standards development, 

focusing on the politics as well as the 

analytical and practical skills needed to 

successfully engage in standards 

negotiations. It is an excellent skill-builder for 

standards development veterans and 

newcomers alike. While the simulation is a 

game, many describe it as “serious fun.” It 

is designed to be dynamic, demanding and 

even frustrating – just like real life!

Standards and Conformity 

Assessment Training 

Workshops for Government Agencies

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com

Visit https://www.standards.gov Rev. 06/05/2018
#### Nancy Buford et al. *v.*J. W. Carter.

Sales — Failure to Disclose Defects — Liability of Seller.

If a vendor of a horse, at the time of its sale, 'knew that the horse had defective eyes, it was the vendor’s duty to tell the purchaser of such facts, and for failure to do so he is liable in damages.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

March 3, 1874.

*Roberts, for appellants.*

*Robinson & Hinkle, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The( purchase of the mare was concluded at the residence of the appellant on the morning succeeding the county court in Shelby. The animal was then warranted sound and a good work mare, but proved in a short time,, to be utterly valueless by reason of its unsound condition when the sale took place, and still the appellant is denied the right of recovery. The verdict is not ;only against the evidence, but palpably so. The proof not only shows the warranty, but conduces strongly to establish knowledge on the part of the appellee, or rather his assignee, of this unsoundness when the sale was made. If he "knew this fact, or that her eyes were defective, it was the vendor’s duty to have so told the appellant, and failing to do- so would be liable in damages.

There is a paragraph in the petition alleging the scienter, and the second instruction should have been given with some slight alteration in its language. , If the mare, at the time of the sale, had defective eyes and the plaintiff’s assignee knew this fact, it was his duty to have informed the defendant, and if he failed.to do so the plaintiff is entitled to recover. The judgment of the court below is .reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a- new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
10990.

#### Roberts *v.*Bank of LaGrange.

Stephens, J,

1. Where a debtor deposits with a bank cotton receipts as collateral security for a loan, and the bank, after being authorized by the debtor to sell the cotton for a certain amount, sells it for a less amount before the maturity of the loan, and, instead of crediting the proceeds of the sale against the loan, credits the same against an unsecured overdraft of the debtor, and deposits the balance in the bank to the debtor’s credit; and where the debtor, upon a rendition to him by the bank of a statement of the transaction, protests against it, and leaves the balance thus deposited to his credit untouched, and never withdraws it or any part thereof, a renewal of the loan thereafter, without more, will not as a matter of law amount to a ratification of the sale of the cotton. The debtor’s claim for the value of the cotton not being a defense to the note, but being rather in the nature of a set-off or counterclaim, the ruling here made is distinguishable from the cases of *American Car Co.*v. *Atlanta Street Ry. Co.,*100 *Ga.*254 (28 S. E. 40); *Atlanta Consolidated Bottling Co.*v. *Hutchinson,*109 *Ga.*550 (35 S. E. 124), and *Hogan*v. *Brown,*112 *Ga.*662 (37 S. E. 880), in which it zwas held that whore a debtor renews a note with knowledge of a defense thereto, he cannot plead such defense and defeat a recovery in a suit on a renewal note.

*344Decided May 12, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of LaGrange-—B. J. Mayer, judge pro hac vice. September 8, 1919.

*A. H. Thompson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hatton Lovejoy,*contra.

2. In a suit by the bank on the renewal note, where the defendant pleaded a set-off for the value of the cotton, upon it appearing from the evidence that the defendant did not authorize or ratify the sale of the cotton by the bank, he would be entitled to recover for the cotton at the value at which he authorized the bank to sell. It was therefore error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the note sued on.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick T. Mooney, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: August 5, 2004



By:

/s/    PATRICK T. MOONEY,
M.D.Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
11353.

#### Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railroad Co. *v.*Neely.

Decided May 11, 1920.

Action for damages; from Walker superior court — Judge Wright. January 17, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

1. In view of the amount of the verdict returned ($5,000) and the other facts of the case, it was reversible error for the court, in charging upon the measure of damages for the homicide, to fail to call the attention of the jury to the fact that in the decedent’s declining years his capacity to labor at his calling, and his ability to earn money, might have decreased, and that they should consider this fact in fixing the amount of damages. *Western & Atlantic R. Co.*v. *Roberts,*144 *Ga.*250 (8) (86 S. E. 933), and cit.

2. Hone of the remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. As there must be another trial of the case, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not passed upon.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*311*S. D. Smith, Shattuck & Shattuck,*for plaintiff in error.

*Rosser & Shaw,*contra.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 25 , 2019

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00464- CR

BENNY HERBERT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1532313

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N On May 18, 2017, Benny Herbert pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Under the terms of a plea-bargain agreement between appellant and the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to two years’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction

on June 3, 2019

. We lack jurisdiction over this appea l for two reasons: the notice of appeal was not filed timely, and this is a plea bargain case with no appealable matters and appellant has not been granted permission to appeal.2

First, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after sentence is imposed if

the defendant has not filed a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26 .2 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal. Under those circumstances it can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed more than two years after the sentence was imposed. Therefore, the appeal was not timely perfected.
Second, in a plea bargain case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant—a defendant may appeal only matters raised by a written , pretrial motion or with t he trial court’s permission. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant’s punishment do es not exceed the agreed length of confinement. The record do es not contain any appealable pretrial rulings , and the trial court did not grant appellant permission to appeal.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant

. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Order filed March 1, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________

NO. 14-12-00081-CV

______________

SUSANA V. IZAGUIRRE, Appellant

V.

ROBERTO S. RIVERA, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-30420A

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 13, 2011. Appellant filed a timely 

motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due January 11, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.1. Appellant, however, filed her notice of appeal on January 20, 2012, a date within 15 

days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is Anecessarily 

implied@ when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to 

extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is 

still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See 
2

Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. 

App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the 

notice of appeal within ten days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). 

If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3.

PER CURIAM
11687.

#### McBride *v.*The State.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Indictment for manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Randolph superior court—-Judge Worrill. May 29, 1920.'

*Charles W. Worrill,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. T. Castellow, solicitor-general, R. R. Arnold,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The special grounds of the motion for a new trial are merely amplifications of the general grounds; and the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every *reasonable*hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick T. Mooney, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President 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:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: May 7, 2004



By:

/s/ Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.Patrick T. Mooney, M.D.Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal
Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION 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 Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.

/s/ Robert Gunn
----------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of Financial Officer)

Date: May 12, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of the undersigned herebycertifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thefiscal period ended June 30, 2007 of Allstate Life Insurance Company ofNew York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

 
| August 6, 2007 |                                       |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                |                                       |
|                | /s/ James E. Hohmann                       |   |
|                | James E. Hohmann                           |
|                | President and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                |                                       |
|                |                                       |
|                | /s/ John C. Pintozzi                       |   |
|                | John C. Pintozzi                           |
|                | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                     |                                            |  |  |

 

E-5

----
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 33-13995, 33-72438, 333-06025, 333-88683 and
333-115470) pertaining to the Nashua Corporation 1987 Stock Option Plan, Nashua
Corporation Employees' Savings Plan, Nashua Corporation Amended 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the Nashua Corporation 1999 Shareholder Value Plan of our report
dated February 4, 2005 and the Nashua Corporation 2004 Value Creation Incentive
Plan, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Nashua Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

Manchester, New Hampshire                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                              ---------------------------------
March 14, 2005
**Exhibit23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTACCOUNTANTS

 

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementon Form S-3 (Nos. 333-85142) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-48476,33-54175, 33-56291, 33-65199, 333-88907, 333-88923 and 333-90167) of ALLTELCorporation of our reports dated January 21, 2004 relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           |
|                           |
| Little  Rock, Arkansas         |
| March  5, 2004                 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENT INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000839437
<NAME> AMFAC/JMB HAWAII, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,556
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,429
<PP&E>                                         346,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,001
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 478,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,134
<BONDS>                                        325,729
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (182,189)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   478,844
<SALES>                                         59,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,522
<CGS>                                           54,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,227)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,227)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (19.2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (19.2)
        

</TABLE>