alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21147 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARLVIN WALTER SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-293-1

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marlvin Walter Solomon (“Solomon”) appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2). Solomon makes the following arguments: (1) that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he possessed a firearm in and affecting interstate commerce, and (3) the indictment was defective because it failed to allege thatNo. 01-21147 -2- his possession of the firearm had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. Solomon acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by circuit precedent. Nevertheless, Solomon seeks to preserve the issues for Supreme Court review. This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) is not open to question. See United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1150 (2002). Because the factual basis indicated that the firearm Solomon possessed was not manufactured in Texas, Solomon’s conviction was supported by the evidence. See United States v. Rawls , 85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the indictment in Solomon’s case was not defective for failing to allege that his possession of the firearm had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. See United States v. Gresham , 118 F.3d 258, 264-65 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

           Certification Pursuant To 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



         In connection with the amended annual report of Motient Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Myrna J. Newman, Controller and Chief Accounting
Officer, of the Company, certify, in my capacity as the principal financial
officer, 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 and based on my review
of the Report:


     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



                                        /s/  Myrna J. Newman
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Myrna J. Newman
                                        Controller and Chief Accounting Officer


                                        May 23, 2005
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000835663
<NAME> THE GLENMEDE FUND
<SERIES NUMBER>  3
[NAME] CORE FIXED INCOME PORTFOLIO
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12 MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR END>                  31-Oct-99
<PERIOD-END>                       31-Oct-99
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                 287,747,894
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                283,981,045
<RECEIVABLES>                           2,343,899
<ASSETS-OTHER>                          5,982,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        292,307,431
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>               55,511,608
<OTHER-ITEMS LIABILITIES>               6,111,635
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                    61,623,243
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>              242,402,951
<SHARES-COMMON-CURRENT>                22,704,175
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                  24,198,111
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               1,281,263
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                (9,233,177)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                        0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>               (3,766,849)
<NET-ASSETS>                          230,684,188
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                               0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      17,253,958
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  0
<EXPENSES-NET>                          1,421,575
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                15,832,383
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>               (1,959,380)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>             (12,047,888)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                   1,825,115
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>              15,879,969
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                        0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                           0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 6,375,969
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             7,913,468
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                        43,563
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                (28,301,996)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 1,328,849
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>              (7,273,797)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                         0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                      0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                         1,421,575
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                  260,203,474
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                       10.70
<PER-SHARE-NII>                              0.63
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                     (0.54)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                         0.63
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                    0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                         0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                          10.16
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                              0.55%



</TABLE>
§ 77.1 Material incorporated by reference. *Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication.* The Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication (January 22, 1999, edition) has been approved for incorporation by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. ( a ) The procedures specified in the Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication (January 22, 1999, edition) must be followed for the interstate movement of certain animals regulated under this part.
( b ) *Availability.* Copies of the Uniform Methods and Rules—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication: ( 1 ) Are available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html*;
( 2 ) Are available for inspection at the APHIS reading room, room 1141, USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC; or
( 3 ) May be obtained from the National Animal Health Programs, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
[65 FR 63517, Oct. 23, 2000, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004]
#### FREDDA DIANE BAYNOR TALBOT v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

No. 435PA89

(Filed 10 May 1990)

On discretionary review, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31, of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 95 N.C. App. 446, 382 S.E.2d 447 (1989), affirming the Decision and Order of the North Carolina Industrial Commission entered 7 June 1988. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 April 1990.

*Carter, Archie & Hassell, by Sid Hassell, Jr., for the plaintiff-appellee.*

*Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Victor H. E. Morgan, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

After hearing oral arguments and considering the new briefs of counsel, the Court concludes that discretionary review was improvidently allowed.

Discretionary review improvidently allowed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00064-FDW; 3:83-cr-00050-FDW-1) Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008 Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
§ 1311.7 How does TVA communicate with state, regional, and local officials concerning TVA's programs and activities? ( a ) For those programs and activities covered by a state process under § 1311.6, TVA, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the official state process to determine views of state and local elected officials, and
( 2 ) Communicates with state and local elected officials, through the official state process, as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.
( b ) TVA provides notice to directly affected state, areawide, regional, and local entities in a state of proposed Federal financial assistance or direct federal development if: ( 1 ) The state has not adopted a process under the Order;
( 2 ) The assistance or development involves a program or activity not selected for the state process; or
( 3 ) The particular government entity is not part of or involved in the state process.
This notice may be made by a publication widely available in the potentially affected area or other appropriate means, which TVA in its discretion deems appropriate.
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.155 Statement of policy or guidance. Upon petition by any person, or on its own motion, the Board may issue statements of policy or guidance. In determining whether to issue such a statement, the criteria to be considered by the Board will include, but not be limited to, the following: ( a ) Whether the question presented can more appropriately be resolved by other means;
( b ) Where other means are available, whether a Board statement would prevent the proliferation of cases;
( c ) Whether the resolution of the question presented would have general applicability;
( d ) Whether the question currently confronts the parties as part of their employee-management relationship;
( e ) Whether the question is presented jointly by the parties involved; and
( f ) Whether the issuance by the Board of a statement of policy or guidance would promote the purposes of the General Accounting Office Personnel Act.
# C_2012118EN.01002501.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v OHIM (Highprotect)

(Case T-565/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Highprotect - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 118/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisbourg, Germany) (represented by: U. Ulrich, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2010 (Decision R 1038/2010-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Highprotect as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FRANCIS BOYD,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 172 EM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the Application Seeking Enforcement

is DENIED.
### §382. Assessment of net income taxes

#### (a) Limitations

No State, or political subdivision thereof, shall have power to assess, after September 14, 1959, any net income tax which was imposed by such State or political subdivision, as the case may be, for any taxable year ending on or before such date, on the income derived within such State by any person from interstate commerce, if the imposition of such tax for a taxable year ending after such date is prohibited by section 381 of this title.

#### (b) Collections

The provisions of subsection (a) shall not be construed—

(1) to invalidate the collection, on or before September 14, 1959, of any net income tax imposed for a taxable year ending on or before such date, or

(2) to prohibit the collection, after September 14, 1959, of any net income tax which was assessed on or before such date for a taxable year ending on or before such date.

(Pub. L. 86–272, title I, §102, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 556.)
Exhibit 23.1

 

Independent Auditors' Consent 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No.2 to Registration Statement Nos. 333-91115 on Forms S-3 and 333-74493 on Form S-8 of The Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. of our report dated September 16, 2002, except for the matter discussed in Note 13 as to which the date is September 26, 2002, appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2002.

 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

September 27, 2002
# C_2010274EN.01001701.xml

| 9.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 4 August 2010 — Dermod Patrick O'Brien v Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

(Case C-393/10)

()

2010/C 274/25

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dermod Patrick O'Brien

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministry of Justice (Formerly the Department for Constitutional Affairs)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it for national law to determine whether or not judges as a whole are ‘workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship’ within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, or is there a Community norm by which this matter must be determined? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it for national law to determine whether or not judges as a whole are ‘workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship’ within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, or is there a Community norm by which this matter must be determined?

| 2. | If judges as a whole are workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, is it permissible for national law to discriminate (a) between full-time and part-time judges, or (b) between different kinds of part-time judges in the provision of pensions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If judges as a whole are workers who have an employment contract or employment relationship within the meaning of clause 2.1 of the Framework Agreement, is it permissible for national law to discriminate (a) between full-time and part-time judges, or (b) between different kinds of part-time judges in the provision of pensions?

---
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.88 Board procedures; enforcement. ( a ) All decisions and orders of the Board shall be complied with promptly. Whenever a Board decision or order requires a person or party to take any action, the Board may require such person or party to provide the Board and all parties with a compliance report.
( b ) When the Board does not receive a report of compliance in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the Solicitor shall make inquiries to determine the status of the compliance report and shall report upon the results of the inquiry to the Board.
( c ) Any person and/or the General Counsel may petition the Board for enforcement of a final decision of the Board. The petition shall specifically set forth the reasons why the petitioner believes there is non-compliance.
( d ) Upon receipt of a non-compliance report from its Solicitor or of a petition for enforcement of a final decision, the Board may issue a notice to any person to show cause why there was non-compliance. Apart from remedies available to the parties, the Board may seek judicial enforcement of a decision or order issued pursuant to a show cause proceeding.
( e ) If the parties enter into a settlement agreement that has been reviewed and approved by the administrative judge, the Board retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of such settlement agreement.
( f ) Any party to a settlement agreement over which the Board retains jurisdiction may petition the Board for enforcement of the terms of such settlement agreement.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69302, Dec. 12, 2003]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

AF 06-0216 

IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT 

COMMISSION ON TECHNOLOGY 

ORIGINAL 

ORDER 

The terms of Peg Allison, the Honorable Audrey Barger, Representative Kenneth 

Holmlund, the Honorable Larry Carver, P. Mars Scott, and the Honorable Randal 

Spaulding on the Montana Supreme Court Commission on Technology have expired. The 

term of John Mudd will expire on April 1, 2022. The Court thanks each of them for their 

service to the Commission, to this Court, and to the people of Montana. 

IT IS ORDERED that Peg Allison, the Honorable Audrey Barger, Representative 

Kenneth Holmlund, P. Mars Scott, and the Honorable Randal Spaulding are hereby 

reappointed to the Commission on Technology for terms expiring on October 31, 2024. 

John Mudd or his designee is hereby reappointed to the Commission for a term expiring 

April 1, 2025. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Honorable Stacey Nerison is hereby 

appointed to replace the Honorable Larry Carver for a term expiring October 21, 2024. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Peg Allison, the Honorable 

Audrey Barger, the Honorable Larry Carver, Representative Kenneth Holmlund, the 

Honorable Stacey Nerison, P. Mars Scott, the Honorable Randal Spaulding, John Mudd, 

each member of the Commission on Technology, and to the State Bar of Montana. 

DATED this 1 5 day of February, 2022. 

FEB 1 5 2022 

Bowen Grt.t rivvood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

Chief Justice 

02/16/2022

Case Number: AF 06-0216
( i 

, A _ il, . 5
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Melvin Golden (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 54326;

First District

September 21, 1971.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE BURKE.

*948Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender, of Chicago, (Saul H. Brauner, Ronald P. Katz and James J. Doherty, of counsel,) for appellant.

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Robert A. Novelle and Michael J. Goldstein, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel,) for the People.
Together, America Prospers

Calendar Year 2022 Disaster Water Grants

What does this 

program do?

Calendar Year 2022 Disaster 

Water Grants help eligible 

communities handle 

expenses related to incidents 

(Presidentially declared disasters) 

that damaged water systems. 

For the purposes of this program, 

the term “water” refers to all 

water resource infrastructure, 

including drinking water, 

wastewater, storm drainage, and 

solid waste facilities.

Who can apply?

• Municipalities, counties,

districts, authorities, or other

political subdivisions of a state,

commonwealth, or territory

• Nonprofit organizations

• Federally recognized Tribes

• Community-based prefabricated

home organizations

What is an eligible area?

• Rural areas and towns with

populations of not more than 35,000

• Federally recognized Tribal lands

• Colonias

For a current list of Presidentially

Declared Disasters, visit the Federal

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) website at this link: https://

www.fema.gov/disaster/declarations.

At the time of this Notice of Funding 

Opportunity (NOFO), areas in the 

following states and territories 

experienced qualifying events in 

calendar year 2022: Alaska, 

American Samoa, Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, 

New Mexico, New York, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, 

South Carolina, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, 

Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and 

West Virginia. 

How can funds be used?

Funds can be used to develop water 

infrastructure system capacity and 

resiliency to reduce or eliminate

long-term risks from hazards resulting 

from (Presidentially declared) 

disasters during calendar year 2022.

How do we get started? 

• Applications are accepted

year-round, and can be filed

electronically using RD Apply

(available at this link:

https://tinyurl.com/ya7s437u).

• You will find a link to the RD Apply

Application Intake Guide at this link:

https://tinyurl.com/2w8ekdh3.

Applications are also accepted 

through your local USDA Rural 

Development office. A map and state 

list can be found at this link: 

https://tinyurl.com/5yuf24mx. 

Who can answer questions?

The USDA Rural Development Water 

and Environmental Program specialists 

who serve your area can help. A list of 

state-based offices is available at this 

link: https://tinyurl.com/5yuf24mx. 

What law governs this program?

The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations 

Act (Public Law 117-328, Division N, 

available at this link: 

https://tinyurl.com/2hjs7jyn). 

NOTE: Because information changes, always consult official program instructions 

or contact your local Rural Development office for help. A list is available at this 

link: https://go.usa.gov/xJHPE. You will find additional resources, forms, and program 

information at https://rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, 

and lender.

Last Updated July 2023