alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Co urt of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00010

- CV

ATLAS TOWING AND STORAGE

,

Appellant

v.

Cheryl VOMERO

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV04077

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A filing fee of $ 205 .00 was due from appellant when this appeal was filed but was not

paid. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 5; T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N C IVIL

C ASES I N T HE S UPREME C OURT A ND T HE C OURTS O F A PPEALS A ND B EFORE T HE J UDICIAL

P ANEL O N M ULTIDISTRICT L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158, Aug. 28, 2015). The clerk of

th is court n otified appellant of this deficiency in a letter dated January 5, 2017 . The fee remains

unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

– at the time an item is presented for filing

– whatever fees are required by statute

or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order

that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore ORDER appellant, not later than February 6, 2017 to either (1) pay the

applicable filing fee or (2) provide written proof to t his court that it is excused by statute or the

Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that

indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment

of costs). If appellant f

ails to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be

dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3._________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 24th day of January, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 8.1

Subsidiaries of Criteo S.A.



|                                                               |  |                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                             |  | State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Criteo France SAS                                              |  | France                                      
|Criteo Ltd                                                     |  | United Kingdom                              
|Criteo GmbH                                                    |  | Germany                                     
|Criteo Srl                                                     |  | Italy                                       
|Criteo Corp.                                                   |  | Delaware                                    
|DataPop, Inc.                                                  |  | Delaware                                    
|Criteo B.V.                                                    |  | Netherlands                                 
|Criteo Do Brasil Desenvolvimento De Serviços De Internet Ltda. |  | Brazil                                      
|Criteo Australia Pty Ltd                                       |  | Australia                                   
|Criteo K.K.                                                    |  | Japan                                       
|Ad-X Limited                                                   |  | United Kingdom                              
|Criteo Advertising (Beijing) Co., Ltd.                         |  | China                                       
|Criteo Singapore PTE. LTD.                                     |  | Singapore                                   
|Criteo Europa MM, S.L.                                         |  | Spain (Barcelona)                           
|Criteo Espana, S.L.                                            |  | Spain (Madrid)                              
|Criteo LLC                                                     |  | Russia
#### Teresa J. FEUCHT, Appellant, v. Leeann PIERCE, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.

No. 07-1176.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2008.

Filed: June 3, 2008.

Patrick T. Dougherty, Dougherty *&*Dougherty, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellant.

Leeann Pierce, Brookings, SD, pro se.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Chapter 7 debtor Teresa Feucht appeals from the district court’s1 decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s2 exemption order in favor of trustee Leeann Pierce. Upon review of the bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo, *see In re Foust,*52 F.3d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1995), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

2

. The Honorable Irvin N. Hoyt, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota,
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43126

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GAYLE KEITH WESLING aka 

SESLING aka WES SESLING,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 350

Filed: January 27, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Gayle Keith Wesling pled guilty to one count of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 

18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409, and one count of criminal possession of a financial transaction card, I.C. 

§§ 18-3125, 18-3128. The district court imposed unified sentences of fourteen years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft and five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for criminal possession of a financial transaction card. The 

district court ordered these sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to a 
2

sentence in a separate case. Wesling filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, which the district court denied. Wesling appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Wesling’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Wesling’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of FS Investment Corporation III (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Form 10-K), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward T. Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 9, 2018



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN      
|Michael C. Forman          
|Chief Executive Officer    
|                           
|/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR.
|Edward T. Gallivan, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer
#### BARRETT et al. v. LANDES.

No. 6570.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Feb. 9, 1951.

*188Erwin O. Kunau, Donald E: Raymond, Kansas City, Mo., for-plaintiffs.

Harry Howard, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The action in this case is based upon an order -of the Area Rent Director dated April 4, 1950. On that date the Director made two retroactive orders reducing the rentals being charged by the property owner. These several orders were made effective “from July 1, 1947” or “date first rented thereafter,” and supplemented the retroactive reduction order with the following: “Any rent collected from the effective date of this order in excess of the amount provided in the order shall be refunded to the tenant within 30 days from the date of issue.”

Based upon such order the tenants joined in a single action for the recovery of the claimed overcharge. This action was instituted because of the asserted violation of the order of the Area Rent Director in directing refunds of the overcharges. The suit was filed on September 6, 1950. By paragraph (e) of Section 925, Title 50 Appendix U.S.C.A. it is there provided that suit may be brought “within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation” of a “regulation, order, (Emphasis mine) or price schedule * *

The defendant had 30 days from April 4, 1950 to comply with the order and obviously, according to all of the pleadings, there was a violation of the order. The defendant has -challenged the constitutional validity of the order by her amended answer. Such aver-ments of the answer the plaintiffs seek to have stricken.

Paragraph 5 of the Amended Answer should be stricken for the reason that under the law the Area Rent Director had the authority to make such an order, and' the remedy of the defendant was by proper procedure to seek a review by the Emergency Court of Appeals.

Paragraph 6 should not be stricken for the reason that it is charged that the Area Rent Director made the order arbitrarily and capriciously and as the result of passion and prejudice. The defendant is entitled to tender such an issue, and that paragraph should not be stricken.

The motion for a summary judgment should be overruled for the reason that it seeks triple damages as prayed and the defendant by her answer pleads good faith in all she did. This, together with other averments, tenders factual issues which should be tried. It would follow therefore, that the motion to strike paragraph 5 of the amended answer will be *189sustained and the motion to strike paragraph 6 will be overruled, and plaintiff’s motion for a summary judgment will, in like manner, be overruled.

It will be so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-1997
<CASH>                                          50,306
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  213,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,500
<INVENTORY>                                    299,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               803,369
<PP&E>                                       3,542,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 208,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,623,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          660,120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,969
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,562,038
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,623,062
<SALES>                                        546,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               546,012
<CGS>                                          428,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,689,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,181)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (9,180)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,131,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,131,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,107,708)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
133470 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 133470 COA: 273451 Wayne CC: 05-005982-01 GORDON RANDLE DAVID, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 29, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0618 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND MARCH 31,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         590,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,885,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                   198,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,041,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,555,033
<PP&E>                                       4,520,168
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,110,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,720,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,882,470
<BONDS>                                      3,731,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,563
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,413,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,720,979
<SALES>                                      2,054,816
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,074,351
<CGS>                                        1,210,435
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,546,545<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (26,336)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             275,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (542,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (542,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (542,858)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES TRANSLATION GAIN OF $44,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SERGIO DIAZ-HINOJOS, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30086

D.C. No. 

9:15-cr-00018-DLC-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2017

Portland, Oregon

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Diaz-Hinojos appeals his conviction for illegal reentry, contending

the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as

untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo, see

United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788, 797 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

FILED

MAY 29 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
“Section 1326 sets forth three separate offenses for a deported alien: to

‘enter,’ to ‘attempt to enter,’ and to be ‘found in’ the United States without

permission.” United States v. Parga-Rosas, 238 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Prosecutions under § 1326 are governed by a five-year statute of limitations. See

18 U.S.C. § 3282(a); United States v. Reyes-Ceja, 712 F.3d 1284, 1289 & n.30 (9th

Cir. 2013). The statute of limitations begins to run when the offense is completed,

and an offense under the “found in” prong is completed “when an alien is

discovered and identified by the immigration authorities.” United States v.

Hernandez, 189 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 1999). We have not yet decided, however,

“whether such discovery and identification must be based on the government’s

actual knowledge or can instead be proven under a constructive knowledge

theory.” United States v. Zamudio, 787 F.3d 961, 966 (9th Cir. 2015). We need

not decide this question here.

Even assuming that a constructive knowledge standard governs and that it is

knowledge by the immigration authorities that matters, Diaz cannot show such

constructive knowledge here. There is no evidence that immigration authorities

were willfully blind to information in their possession, or that they unreasonably

refrained from taking their usual investigative steps. The fact that immigration

2
authorities could have implemented a hypothetical system for scouring the files of

other agencies does not suffice.

In sum, the indictment was timely. The district court therefore properly

denied Diaz’s motion to dismiss. The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,303,481
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,891,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                   213,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,148,723
<PP&E>                                       1,395,512
<DEPRECIATION>                                 190,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,077,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,400,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           641
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,160,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,077,999
<SALES>                                     12,254,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,254,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,376,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,877
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                81,664
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,150,319)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,061     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,178,380)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.51)
        

</TABLE>