alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-31171 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RAYMOND PEGG, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CR-271-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raymond P egg appeals his conviction fo r e ngaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license, a rguing that the e vidence was insufficient to support his convicti o n . H e contends the e vidence indicated that he was not engaged in the b usiness of selling firearms, and he di d not need the money from the sale of firearms t o support himself. H e contends that he sold some firearms

on one occasion t o purchase a vehicle for h is son, but maintai n s t h a t selling a U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-31171 Document: 00512409404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2013No. 12-31171

gun collection is legal and d oes not constitute engaging in the business of dealing in firearms. A r eview of the evidence indicates that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a r e a s o n a ble doubt that Pegg was engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. See United States v. Harris , 666 F.3d 905, 907 (5th Cir. 2012). The jury rejected Pegg’s testimony that he merely collected firearms and sold them occasionally, and th is court may not s ubstitute its own views on the credibility o f w itnesses f or those of the jury. See U nited States v. Anderson , 559 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2009). Pegg frequently bought firearms from the Barksdale Air Force Base E xchange and gun shows, he sold firearms for a profit, he did not keep r ecords on these sales, and h e sometimes advertised firearms for sale in the local newspaper. The evidence indicated that Pegg’s prinicipal motivation for selli n g f i rearms was economic and that he made repetitive purchases and sales of firearms. T h e Government was not required to prove that P egg’s primary business was the sale of firearms or that h e sold a specific number o f f

irearms. For these reasons, a rational j ury could have found beyond a r easonable doubt that Pegg was engaged in the b usiness of selling firearms without a license. See H arris , 666 F.3d at 907. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-31171 Document: 00512409404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2013
Unassociated Document



Exhibit 10.7
















	
Glenn MacNeil


MacKov Investments Limited


1554 Jarvie Crescent


Milton, Ontario


Canada L9T 5Z3

	
March 28, 2011













	
Re:

	
Purchase of Overriding Royalty Interest












Dear Glenn:







This letter will serve to confirm our understanding and agreement for the purchase by MacKov Investments Limited (“MacKov”) from Hewitt Petroleum, Inc. (“HPI”) of certain overriding royalty interests (“ORRI”) in oil & gas leases owned or to be acquired by HPI in Kansas, as follows:







Purchase of ORRI.  MacKov hereby agrees to purchase, and HPI hereby agrees to sell, assign and convey to MacKov, an ORRI in the following percentages and in described leases in Kansas:








	
Project

	 	
Lease Name

	 	
%ORRI

	 
	
Boyd

	 	
Boyd

	 	 	1.370	%
	
Gorham

	 	
Furthmyer

	 	 	1.500	%
	
Gorham

	 	
Mai

	 	 	0.250	%
	
Koelsch

	 	
Anderson Trust

	 	 	2.250	%
	
Koelsch

	 	
Ketchelman (Gill)

	 	 	1.125	%
	
Koelsch

	 	
Meyer Trust

	 	 	2.250	%
	
Koeslch

	 	
Prescott

	 	 	1.000	%
	
South Haven

	 	
Daryl Yearout

	 	 	2.250	%
	
South Haven

	 	
Dwain Yearout

	 	 	2.250	%
	
South Haven

	 	
Helsel

	 	 	2.250	%
	
Gorham

	 	
H. Boxberger

	 	 	1.000	%










The purchase price for the ORRI shall be $50,000. The assignment of the interest shall be made and recorded by HPI in the form of all other assignments to its other ORRI owners.  The $50,000 shall be used by HPI to acquire, remediate and develop its Kansas oil & gas properties.  This agreement shall be governed under the laws of the state of Utah, and the venue for any dispute shall be Salt Lake County, Utah.


 



	  	
HEWITT PETROLEUM, INC.


	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ Douglas C. Hewitt


	  	  	
Douglas C. Hewitt, President












ACCEPTED & AGREED:


MacKov Investments Limited








	
By:

	
/s/ Glenn MacNeil

	  	
Dated: March 28, 2011


	  	
 Glenn MacNeil

	
  

	  










15 W. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 1050, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 • OFFICE 801.519.8500
#### Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Schools Health Insurance Cooperative, Respondent, v Candor Central School District, Appellant.

Submitted December 10, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### David Allen Fitz v. Maureen Leigh White

November 12, 2002

Case No. LM-1930-1

By Judge Melvin R. Hughes, Jr.

In this case, plaintiff, a state prisoner, has instituted this suit by Motion for Judgment for money damages, alleging that his court-appointed attorney, named as a defendant in this action, failed to note an appeal to a judgment order of this court revoking a suspended sentence.

The case was before the court on or about October 9,2002 on defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff appeared in person *pro se.*At that time defendant argued that plaintiff, by failing to adequately respond to Requests for Admissions, has conceded that he has no evidence to show whether any appeal would have been successful had it been timely pursued. Without such evidence, plaintiff’s case cannot be proved. The court agrees.

A plaintiff situated as this plaintiff must plead and prove that there was an attorney-client relationship which gave rise to a duty breached by the attorney and that “the neglect or breach of duty was the proximate cause of [the] claimed damages.” *Hendrix v.*Daugherty, 249 Va. 540, 544, 457 S.E.2d 71 (1995), citing *Allied Production’s District,*217 Va. 763, 764-65, 232 S.E.2d 774 (1977). For this reason and for those mentioned in defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, the motion for summary judgment is granted and this action shall be dismissed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 14, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 55 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                           ( print page 43261)    *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-195, CP2017-296.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19469 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
NO. 07-08-0183-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	MAY 30, 2008

	______________________________

	MARY L. REYES,

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS,

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2006-413009; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Order of Dismissal

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Mary L. Reyes, appellant, attempts to appeal her conviction for driving while intoxicated with a passenger under fifteen years of age.  The court imposed sentence on January 18, 2008.   Appellant then filed a motion for new trial on February 14, 2008.  Her notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2008.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within 90 days after that date if a motion for new trial is filed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  A motion for new trial having been filed, appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed on or before April 17, 2008.  Appellant’s attorney was notified by this court on May 16, 2008, that the notice of appeal appears untimely and directed him to file any documents or matters considered necessary for this court to determine its appellate jurisdiction.  These documents were to be filed no later than May 27, 2008.  No documents or response have been received by the court to date.  

	A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  If it is untimely, we can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding.  Id. at 523.  Appellant's notice being untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal.

	Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.1

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice 

Do not publish.  Inasmuch as the exception to concurrent sentencing found in the Texas Penal Code does not apply to the offenses for which appellant was convicted, the sentences must run concurrently.  See § 3.03(a).  The State has conceded this issue.  Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are reformed to delete the cumulation orders.   Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Robbins v. State, 914 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).  As reformed, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. 	

							Mackey K. Hancock

						                   Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                       
<MULTIPLIER>                  1       
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999          
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999    
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999    
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1    
<CASH>                                26,692    
<SECURITIES>                               0          
<RECEIVABLES>                      6,187,618   
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,093,688             
<INVENTORY>                           28,548   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   5,270,782   
<PP&E>                             1,098,029   
<DEPRECIATION>                       386,402   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    18,959,338   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             13,339,613   
<BONDS>                            7,574,575   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0   
<PREFERRED>                                0    
<COMMON>                             118,844   
<OTHER-SE>                         4,576,028   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      18,959,338   
<SALES>                                    0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   6,947,658   
<CGS>                                      0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      6,477,847   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   241,245   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      273,890   
<INCOME-TAX>                             831   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  273,059
<DISCONTINUED>                    (1,425,000)       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0  
<CHANGES>                                  0   
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,151,941)   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            .02  
<EPS-DILUTED>                            .02   
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement (as defined below), of the Company during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”); and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Section 4.09(a) of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, in its individual capacity and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2013-B Owner Trust.




Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2015.




/s/Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
#### George LEMM, Appellant, v. OMNI ENGINEERING, INC., Appellee.

No. 07-1967.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2007.

Filed: Jan. 14, 2008.

Robb Gage, Trial Attorney, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Jennifer Rebecca Deitloff, Roger James Miller, McGrath & North, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

George Lemm appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his lawsuit against his former employer, Omni Engineering, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act,-42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Having conducted a *de novo*review of the record, *see Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc.,*398 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir.2005), we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Lemm is not actually disabled because he is not limited in a major life activity, *see Nuzum v. Ozark Auto. Distribs., Inc.,*432 F.3d 839, 843-48 (8th Cir.2005), and that Omni Engineering neither regarded Lemm as being disabled, *see Christensen v. Titan Distrib., Inc.,*481 F.3d 1085, 1093 (8th Cir.2007), nor had a record which misclassified Lemm’s impairment as a disability, *see Taylor v. Nimock’s Oil Co.,*214 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir.2000). Because Lemm has not met the first element of a prima facie case under the ADA, we do not address the issue of whether Omni Engineering should have reasonably accommodated him.

Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
*

 After examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Counsel concedes that he raises his argument here only

to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. Thus, the appeal is submitted on

the briefs and the record. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 2, 2006*

Decided November 3, 2006

Before

 Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

 Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 05-3887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SERGIO DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 03 CR 935

Amy J. St. Eve,

 Judge.

O R D E R

Sergio Diaz was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which he argues is unconstitutional. He first made this

argument when he moved to dismiss his indictment, asserting that the statute is

unconstitutional under the commerce clause because it criminalizes the possession

of firearms that do not substantially affect interstate commerce. See United States

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-3887 Page 2

v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The district court denied Diaz’s motion without

explanation. 

A jury subsequently found Diaz guilty. Afterward, Diaz moved for acquittal

or a new trial under Rules 29 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

renewing, among other things, his arguments from his earlier motion. The district

court denied this motion without explanation.

On appeal, Diaz reiterates his argument that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional

on its face because it lacks the required nexus to interstate commerce under Lopez. 

Diaz admits that the precedent of this circuit is against him and that he raises the

argument only to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court.

We have consistently rejected Diaz’s argument. See, e.g., United States v.

Van Sach, 458 F.3d 694, 703 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Olson, 408 F.3d 366,

372-73 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lemons, 302 F.3d 769, 772-73 (7th Cir.

2002); United States v. Bass, 325 F.3d 847, 849 (7th Cir. 2003). If Lopez does

invalidate § 922(g)(1), it is for the Supreme Court to so hold. Lemons, 302 F.3d at

773.

AFFIRMED
OFFICER'SCERTIFICATE

 

 

 

 

I,Karen Montbach, a Managing Director of Citibank, N.A.(the "Company"), hereby certify, with respectto the Trust and ServicingAgreement, dated as of May 6, 2013 , (the "Agreement"),by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.,as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,as master servicer andspecial servicer, Citibank, N.A., ascertificate Administrator (the "Certificate Administrator"),and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee,the following:

 

l. A review of the Company'sactivities as Certificate Administrator during the reportingperiod ending December 31, 2014 and its performanceunder the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

2.To the best of my knowledge,based on such review, as of andfor the reporting periodending December 31, 2014, the Company hasfulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement inall material respects throughout thereporting period.

 

Thisstatement is givenby the undersigned asan authorized officer of the Company and not in theundersigned's individual capacity.

 

Date:February27, 2015
EXHIBIT 10.1 


 






Joint Venture Contract and Operating Agreement
        dated October 24, 2011, between the Registrant and PEMCO, LLC.


 


 


The accompanying PDF document contains the signed operating agreement.
Exhibit 32(a)

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, 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 that the information contained in this Form
10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company


/s/Jan W. Clark

Jan W. Clark
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 5, 2004













                                       20
<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 7059** 

DEMAR WORRELL ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
and

ANTHONY VELASQUEZ ,
Plaintiff ,

v.

SERGEANT SPARKS; SERGEANT WINN ,
Defendants

– Appellees ,
and

WAYNE COUNTY JAIL ,
Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:14

- ct

- 03092

- D )

Submitted : November 23, 2015 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Demar Worrell, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Demar Worrell appeals the district court ’ s order s granting
summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 )
complaint and denying re consideration . We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Worrell v. Sergeant
Sparks , No. 5:14

- ct

- 03092

- D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2015 & June 11,

2015) . We deny Worrell’s mo tion for medical records and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CHRISTENSEN & DUNCAN, CPA'S LC

                          Certified Public Accountants
                       975 East Wood Oak Lane, Suite 200
                           Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
                              Phone (801) 263-7990
                               Fax (801) 263-7838


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the inclusion in this Quarterly report of Form 10-Q of our report
dated October 10, 2000 on our review of the financial statements of Commercial
Concepts, Inc. for the three and six months ended August 31, 2000.

Christensen & Duncan CPA's LC

/s/ Christensen & Duncan CPA's LC

Salt Lake City, Utah
October 12, 2000