alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-2120.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2008.

Filed: June 19, 2008.

*488James C. Delworth, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Felipe Mendoza, Federal Correctional Institution, Beaumont, TX, for pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Felipe Mendoza appeals from the district court’s1 denial of his motion for reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.), which reduced certain base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(e) depending on the quantity of cocaine base (crack) involved.

Mendoza pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of five kilograms of powder cocaine. Mendoza was sentenced to 262 months in prison and judgment was entered on September 30,1994. In April 2008 Mendoza filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 706. The district court denied the motion and Mendoza appeals.

Mendoza’s sentence was driven by the quantity of powder cocaine he conspired to distribute. Amendment 706 was enacted by the United States Sentencing Commission to help alleviate the sentencing disparity which adversely affected defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses. *See*U.S.S.G. Supp. to app. C 229-31 (2007). As such, Amendment 706 only affects those defendants whose guideline range was determined based on their involvement with crack cocaine. Consequently, Mendoza does not qualify for relief under Amendment 706.

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying relief pursuant to the guideline amendments is summarily affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark Schaftlein, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of SP Holding Corporation., for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of SP Holding Corporation



|       |  |                                                           
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|BY:    |  | /s/ Mark Schaftlein.                                      
|Name:  |  | Mark Schaftlein                                           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 16, 2006
NO. 07-08 -017 5-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER23, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ ED W IN D EGRAFF , Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 64 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; TH NO. B16 020 -050 5; HON. ROBERT W . KINKAI D, JR., PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. In on e iss ue, a ppel lan t Ed w in DeG ra ff appeal s h is co nv ic ti on for ag g ra v ated sex ual ass aul t of a c hil d by

ch all eng ing the factu a l suf fici ency of the e v ide nce. W e find the ev ide nce suffici ent a nd affirm t he j udg ment. The per ti nent sta ndard of rev iew is ex pla ine d i n W

ats on v . St ate, 204 S. W .3d 4 04 (Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) and it s p ro g eny . W e refer t he par ti es to t hem.2

Next, appel lan t w as conv icted o f a g g ra v ated sex ual as saul t by i ntent ion all y

and know ing ly

ca usi ng the penetrati on of the female sex ual org an of his nine -y ear-o ld daug hter by his fing er . See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . 22.021( a) (2 )( B) ( Ver non Su pp. 2 009)
. Appel lan t attac ks the suffici ency

of the ev ide nce il lus trati ng thathe p enetrated the c omplai nant w it h his f inger. Furt h e rm ore, th ough he adm itted thathe tou ched the child’s vag ina w ith his hand an d ack now led g ed the i mprop ri ety of that act , he deni ed hav ing co mmitt ed a cr imi nal offense . Ye t, in tha t s tatementhe a ls o s aid thatthe ti ps of tw o fing ers “ touc h[ed] the interior pa rt of

the ou tside lips bu t didn ’t g o inside of them .” So t oo did he draw a pictu re illustrating the relation ship betw een tho se tw o f ingers and the interior parto f t h e la bia touc hed. W e hav e hel d that the sl ig htes t penetrati on is suffici ent to sus tai n a conv icti on. Gr een v . St ate, 209 S.W .3d 831, 832 (Tex
. App.–A mari ll o 2006, pet. re f’d)
. Fur ther more, penetrati on i ncl udes pushi ng as ide and re achi ng beneath a natural fold of ski n i nto a n area of the body

not usual ly

ex posed ev en w hen one i s n aked. Ver non v . St ate, 841 S. W .2d 407, 409 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1992)
. Appel lan t’ s s tatementand his draw ing are s uff ic ien t for a rati onal tri er

of factto deter mine bey ond a re asona ble doubtthatpenet ra ti on oc cur re d. T hatf inding is neithe r against the great w eight of t h e e viden ce or oth erw ise ma nifestly unj ust . Acc ordin g ly , t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Do not p ubl is h.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted**
 **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 I,
        Donald
        S. Robbins, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the quarter
        ended
        June 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of
        1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the periods covered by the
        Form 10-Q.
 Dated:
                August 19 , 2008
              By:
              /s/
                Donald S. RobbinsDonald
                S. RobbinsChief
                Executive Officer
 
 I,
        K.
        Bruce Jones, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the quarter
        ended
        June 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of
        1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the periods covered by the
        Form 10-Q.
 Dated:
                August 19, 2008
              By:
              /s/
                K.
                Bruce JonesK.
                Bruce JonesChief
                Financial Officer
    This
        certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act
        of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the
        Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE REGISTRANT,
PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a  14(a) OR 17 CFR 240.15d  14(a) I, Ray E. Schmitz, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dynamex Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statements 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 Dynamex Inc. 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
we have:  a.
    
    Designed such controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation, andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting;  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
registrants board of directors;  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Date: March 8, 2004/s/ RAY E. SCHMITZName:
    Ray E. SchmitzTitle:
    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20033]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15302 and #15303; Florida Disaster Number FL-
00130]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Florida

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337--DR), dated 09/10/
2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Irma.
    Incident Period: 09/04/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 09/13/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/09/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/11/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

    Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Citrus, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Indian 
River, Lake, Marion, Martin, Okeechobee, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, 
Volusia

Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
Florida: Levy

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)


James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-20033 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 29 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ro wlan d F . Zerba , Jr.
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

19 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , andCOLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In th is di rect cri mi n al ap pe al , Ro wlan d Zerb a ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t 1

or de r rev ok in g hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d im po si ng a 7- m on th se nt en ce, fo ll owe d by

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1 Dis tri ctof I owa
.2 y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. His co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw, an d ha s su bm it te d

a br ie f st at in g th at Zerb a be li ev es th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed au th or it y to se nt en ce hi m to ad di ti on al su pe rv is ed rel eas e be cau se 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( h) , whi ch sp eci fic al ly al lo ws fo r su pe rv is e d rel eas e fo ll owi ng rev oc at io n an d rei nc arce rat io n, was no t in effe ctat t he ti m e o f hi s i ni ti al sen te nc in g.

Afte r care f

u l r e v i e w of th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

au th or it y to im

po se a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo ll owi ng a rev oc at io n pr is on te rm
. See Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 52 9 U.S. 69 4, 71 3 (2 00 0) ; Uni te d St at es v. Pal m er, 38 0 F.3 d 39 5, 39 6- 9 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (en ba nc ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l l eav e to wit hd raw, an d a ffi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
exv10w7wii






Exhibit 10.7.ii




Resolutions of the Compensation Committee of GATX Corporation




Second Amendment of 2004 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan



     RESOLVED, that the GATX Corporation 2004 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2004
Plan”) is hereby amended by adding the following as new Section 2.9:




     2.9 No Exchanges. In addition to the restrictions set forth in
Section 2.6, without the approval of the stockholders of the Company, the
Committee shall not, except for adjustments pursuant to Section 4.2(f), (i)
authorize the amendment of any outstanding Option or Stock Appreciation Right to
reduce its Exercise Price, or (ii) cancel any Option or Stock Appreciation Right
in exchange for cash or another Option, Stock Appreciation Right or Full Value
Award when the Exercise Price per share exceeds the Fair Market Value of the
underlying Stock. Subject to adjustments under Section 4.2(f), the Committee
shall have the authority, without the approval of the stockholders of the Company,
to amend any outstanding Option or Stock Appreciation Right to increase the
Exercise Price or to cancel and replace an Option or Stock Appreciation Right with
the grant of an Option or Stock Appreciation Right having an Exercise Price that
is greater than or equal to the Exercise Price of the original Option or Stock
Appreciation Right.



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that in all other respects, the 2004 Plan is ratified and confirmed;



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of, and counsel to, the Corporation be, and each of them
hereby is, authorized and directed to do all such acts and to prepare, execute, deliver,
acknowledge, file and record all such documents, agreements, certificates, affidavits and other
instruments as may be necessary or appropriate, in the opinion of such officer or counsel, to
effectuate the purposes and intent of the preceding resolutions; and



     FURTHER RESOLVED, that any and all actions previously done by any officers of, or counsel to,
the Corporation in connection with the subject matter of these resolutions be, and they hereby are,
approved, ratified and confirmed in all respects.
<PAGE>

                       Service Systems International, Ltd.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method
                            As Modified for 20% Test

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        PERIOD ENDED  FEB. 28, 1999
                                                                                  SIX MONTHS
                                                                                  ----------
<S>                                                                     <C> 
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                            12,681,488
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                       ------------


Total common and common equivalent shares                                                12,773,988
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                       ------------


Net income (loss) for the period                                                       $   (743,224)
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                       ------------


Total common and common equivalent shares                                                12,773,988
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                       ------------


Loss per common and common equivalent shares                                           $      (0.06)
                                                                                       ------------
                                                                                       ------------
</TABLE>




Earnings per share:

The earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) for the
period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period. Common stock equivalents are excluded from the computation if their
effect would be anti-dilutive.


                                                                             18
CIRCUIT COURT OF NELSON COUNTY

#### Elijah Wilkes, a minor, et al. v. Eric Stephen Scaldeferri

October 1, 1998

Case No. (Law) 98-74

By Judge J. Michael Gamble

I am writing this letter to rule on the demurrer of the defendant in the above case. The defendant has demurred to the amended motion for judgment, asserting that Ocea S. Wilkes, the mother of Elijah Wilkes, cannot assert a derivative claim for loss of wages and loss of time incurred while taking care of her son as a result of his injuries in this accident. The demurrer is overruled.

The defendant argues that the derivative claim of a parent for loss of time and wages arising from a child’s personal injury is not cognizable in Virginia. The defendant asserts that § 8.01-36 ofthe Code ofVirginia, which codifies the derivative claim of a parent for expenses of an injured child, does not include expenses incurred by the parent for loss of wages or loss of time. Section 8.01-36 provides that a parent may bring an action against a tortfeasor for “the expenses of curing or attempting to cure such infant from the result of such personal injury....”

Section 8.01-36 does not restrict the expenses to which a parent is entitled to recover to just medical expenses and medical bills. Expenses related to curing a child could include mileage, loss of time or wages, or costs to modify a room or a house for a child who has become disabled as a result of injuries in an accident.

Upon consideration, it appears that the real issue is one of weight and proof. The parent must prove that the time spent with the infant, resulting in a loss of wage or time, is reasonably related to the child being cured of its injuries, and otherwise reasonable and justified under the facts ofthe case and *453the injuries to the infant. Just as proof of other damages in a negligence case, it must be proximately related to the injuries the plaintiff received, and reasonable. This is mostly an issue for the trier of fact to determine.