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

No. 78-5353

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 30, 1979.

James Cecil Flanagan, pro se.

*253Tom Pearl, Austin, Tex. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Jamie C. Boyd, U. S. Atty., Le Roy Morgan Jahn, Archie Carl Pierce, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CLARK, GEE and HILL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York, et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

James Cecil Flanagan appeals from his conviction and sentence on a guilty plea.

His first complaint is of the inclusion in his presentencing report and consideration by the trial judge of the “official version” of the far-flung drug smuggling conspiracy of which he was a part. His claim is that this version contains inaccuracies, though he does not specify how these affected him. The trial court stated, however, that he was not concerned with this portion of the report in sentencing James Flanagan; and we have noted that this portion of the report need not be sanitized since it is intended to be in the nature of an overall statement of defendant’s alleged complicity. *United States v. Ramirez,*513 F.2d 72, 77-78 n.4 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*423 U.S. 912, 96 S.Ct. 215, 46 L.Ed.2d 140 (1975).

Appellant’s second point is so fine as to be well-nigh invisible. At sentencing, government counsel informed the court that James Flanagan, among several of the defendants, had agreed to cooperate with the government, that it was not dissatisfied with the cooperation it had received from any of them, and that this was taken into consideration by the government in the plea-bargain agreement. James Flanagan characterizes this as “a *defacto*argument for the maximum permissible sentence.” We are entirely unable to follow this reasoning. The government statement did no more than assert the obvious: that it had bargained for Flanagan’s cooperation in arriving at his plea agreement and was satisfied with the bargain, together with an assurance that it was satisfied as well with his cooperation. The bargain did not concern the sentence, a matter left to the court’s discretion. Defendant’s claim seems to be that the government’s statement amounted to an assertion that it had gone as far as it was willing to go in the plea bargain by promising to proceed on reduced charges and that, therefore, the court should impose the maximum sentence. The first assertion appears both obvious and harmless; the second does not follow.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 ****
 Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.
 
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis Mailhot,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
that:
 
 The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Dated:
May 6, 2005
 
 /s/
Francis Mailhot

Francis
Mailhot,
Chief
Executive Officer
(March 26, 1943.)

#### Salvador Realty Corporation, Appellant, v. Harlem Savings Bank, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
CS 316439-V 04/30/2020

Amakuru yizewe kuri COVID-19

Menya amakuru yerekeye koronavirusi (COVID-19) maze ufashe mu kurwanya ikwirakwizwa ry’ibihuha.

cdc.gov/coronavirus

AMAKURU 

YIZEWE YA

1

AMAKURU 

YIZEWE YA

2

AMAKURU 

YIZEWE YA

3

AMAKURU 

YIZEWE YA

4

AMAKURU 

YIZEWE YA

5

Umuntu wavuye mu kato nyuma 

yo gukekwaho ko yari arwaye 

cyangwa uwavuye mu kato yari 

arwaye ntabwo aba ashobora 

kwanduza abandi bantu. 

Hari ibintu byoroshye wakora ukifasha 

ndetse ugafasha n’abandi kugira 

ubuzima bwiza.

Ukeneye kumenya amakuru 

agezweho, wasura urubuga rwa 

interineti rwa CDC rwerekeye 

koronavirusi (COVID-19).

Ku bantu benshi, igipimo 

k’ibyago byo guhita 

barembywa n’agakoko gatera 

COVID-19 kiri hasi.

Ibyorezi bishobora gufata uwo 

ari we wese hatitawe ku ibara 

ry’uruhu cyangwa ubwoko 

bw’umuntu. 

Ushobora gtanga umusanzu mu 

guhagarika COVID-19 ibimenyetso byayo 

birimo: 

Abantu bakuru n’abandi bantu 

bafite imyaka y’ubukure iyo ari yo 

yose ariko bafite ibibazo bikomeye 

by’ubuzima bafite ibyago byinshi 

byo kuzahazwa na COVID-19.

Ubwoba n’umuhangayiko kuri 

COVID-19 bishobora gutera abantu 

gukumira cyangwa kwanga abandi 

nubwo baba badafite ibyago byo 

gukwirakwiza agakoko. 

• Oga intoki zawe kenshi ukoresheje isabune 

namazi meza nibura mu gihe kingana 

n’amsegonda 20, cyane cyane nyuma yo 

gupfuna, gukorora cyangwa kwitsamura; kujya 

mu bwiherero; na mbere yo gufata amafunguro 

cyangwa mbere yo kuyategura.

• Mu gihe uri mu bantu, ambara agapfukamunwa.

• Irinde kwikora ku maso, ku izuru no ku munwa 

utaroga intoki.

• Guma mu rugo igihe urwaye.

• Mu gihe ukorora cyangwa witsamura, shyira ku 

munwa cyangwa ku izuru agatambaro maze 

ukajugunye ahabugenewe.

• Umuriro

• Inkorora

• Kubura umwuka

Itabaze serivisi z’ubuvuzi byihutirwa mu gihe wowe 

cyangwa uwo ukunda agaragaje ibimenyetso 

byihutirwa biburira ko yaba arwaye, birimo: 

• Guhumeka bigoranye

• Ububabare cyangwa kokerwa bidashira mu 

gituza

• Gutakaza ubwenge cyangwa kutabasha 

gukanguka

• Kuma iminwa cyangwa gukanyarara mu maso

Uru rutonde ntiruriho ibimenyetso byose. Itabaze muganga wawe 

mu gihe hari ibindi bimenyetso bikakaye cyangwa biteye inkeke.
#### Dunnell *v.*Dunnell *et al.*

Lumpkin, J.

1. The equitable petition was not subject to the demurrer filed by the defendant.

2. When considered in the light of the pleadings, the evidence, and the entire charge of the court, the excerpts of the charge complained of do not require a new trial.

*323April 15, 1910.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court.

May *21,*1909.

*Calhoun & Rambo,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. D. Sheffield,*and *Pottle & Glesssner,*contra.

3. The charge covered the substantial issues in the case; and if more specific instructions on some particular point were desired, they should have been duly requested.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 67824 / September 11, 2012

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-14950

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

Centaur Management Co. LLC : ORDER APPOINTING 

: TAX ADMINISTRATOR 

Respondent. :

____________________________________:

By order dated January 21, 2011, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”), Rel. No. 34-63749, authorizing the 

Secretary to issue orders during calendar years 2011-2012 appointing, upon request by 

the Commission staff, Damasco and Associates, LLP (“Damasco”), a certified public 

accounting firm located in Half Moon Bay, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On September 7, 2012, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the 

Omnibus Order, the appointment of Damasco as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in 

the above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Damasco, pursuant to and in accordance with the Omnibus 

Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced 

proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Elizabeth M. Murphy

Secretary
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6857/July 12, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-20801

In the Matter of :

:

DF GROWTH REIT II, LLC : ORDER

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding on March 16, 2022, 

with an Order Temporarily Suspending Exemption Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Securities Act of 

1933 and Rule 258 of Regulation A Thereunder and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. 

Respondent DF Growth REIT II, LLC, requested a hearing, and, on March 31, 2022, the 

Commission ordered that the matter be heard by an Administrative Law Judge. On May 16, 2022, 

the proceeding was reassigned to the undersigned. In accordance with the procedural schedule 

adopted on May 26, 2022, the Division of Enforcement filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on 

June 3, 2022; DF Growth, an Opposition on June 21, 2022; and the Division, a Reply on June 28, 

2022. 

Under consideration are DF Growth’s July 7, 2022, Motion for an Order to Show Cause why 

the Division should not be sanctioned for “(Apparently) Failing to Serve Respondent . . . With its 

Response to Respondent’s June 21, 2022 Pleading”; the Division’s July 7, 2022, Response; and 

Respondent’s July 11, 2022, Reply. Respondent alleges, in essence, that the Division did not serve

its June 28 reply pleading properly and Respondent did not have notice of it. It now appears that 

Respondent’s concern was based on a misunderstanding – in fact, the pleading was served by email, 

and Respondent had notice of it. Accordingly, it is appropriate to deny Respondent’s motion for an 

order to show cause.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge

 

1

If the Division has failed to file and serve a certificate of service, it should do so now.
Exhibit 31.1

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification

I, Stephen V. Maroney, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-K/A of Gyrodyne Company of
America, Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. As the Company's sole certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. As the Company's sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's
auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: April 27, 2007

                                /S/ Stephen V. Maroney
                                ----------------------
                                Stephen V. Maroney,
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                Chief Financial Officer


                                       19
July 9 , 2015

Mr. M atthew Tatem

The Drones Shop LLC.

4406 SE Graham Drive

Stuart, FL 34997

Dear Mr. Tatem :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Re gulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your July 1 st 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 2667 ), but we are u nable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the propose d effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely

, /s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst

, Airmen and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### § 80.15 Withdrawal.

A request submitted under the foregoing procedure may be withdrawn prior to the time the Attorney General issues an opinion in response to such request. Any request so withdrawn shall have no force or effect. The Department of Justice reserves the right to retain any FCPA Opinion request, documents and information submitted to it under this procedure or otherwise and to use them for any governmental purposes, subject to the restrictions on disclosures in § 80.14.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7258

LARRY HENDERSON; CLARENCE FORD; FRED MOZINGO;

ABRAHAM WILKES; CHARLES CARPENTER; ROBERT LIN;

NEAL PRICE; HORACIO SAILS; JOSEPH HILL;

GREGORY WAMSLEY; JEREMIAH BAYLOR; GORDON PACK;

RAYMOND ALDERSON; DONALD SCAGGS; JASON

HILLMAN; KENDALL CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

JOSEPH HENNEBERRY, Director Patuxent Institution; BISHOP ROBINSON, Secretary, Maryland

Division of Correction and Public Safety;

PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor, State of Maryland; BOARD OF REVIEW, Patuxent Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-493-PJM, CA-96-1050, CA-96-1051-PJM, CA-96-1052-PJM, CA-96-1053-

PJM, CA-96-1097-PJM, CA-96-1109-PJM, CA-96-1130-PJM, CA-96-1131-

PJM, CA-96-1132-PJM, CA-96-1133-PJM, CA-96-1134-PJM, CA-96-1167-

PJM, CA-96-1193-PJM, CA-96-1194-PJM, CA-96-1254-PJM)

Submitted: April 14, 1998 Decided: May 19, 1998

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Larry Henderson, Clarence Ford, Fred Mozingo, Abraham Wilkes,

Charles Carpenter, Robert Lin, Neal Price, Horacio Sails, Joseph

Hill, Gregory Wamsley, Jeremiah Baylor, Gordon Pack, Raymond Alderson, Donald Scaggs, Jason Hillman, Kendall Cunningham, Appellants

Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Richard Bruce

Rosenblatt, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court's order denying relief on

their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Henderson v. Henneberry, Nos. CA-96-493-PJM, CA-96-1050-PJM, CA-96-

1051-PJM, CA-96-1052-PJM, CA-96-1053-PJM, CA-96-1097-PJM, CA-96-

1109-PJM, CA-96-1130-PJM, CA-96-1131-PJM, CA-96-1132-PJM, CA-96-

1133-PJM, CA-96-1134-PJM, CA-96-1167-PJM, CA-96-1193-PJM, CA-96-

1194-PJM, CA-96-1254-PJM (D. Md. July 31, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
3
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7069]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


Circadian, Inc., Clean Energy Combustion, Inc. (n/k/a Clean 
Energy Combustion Systems, Inc.), Collectible Concepts Group, Inc., 
Communitronics of America, Inc. (n/k/a RPM Advantage, Inc.), and 
ConSyGen, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

March 22, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Circadian, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended September 30, 1995.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Clean Energy Combustion, Inc. (n/k/a Clean Energy Combustion Systems, 
Inc.) because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period 
ended September 30, 2004.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended November 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Communitronics of America, Inc. (n/k/a RPM Advantage, Inc.) because it 
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 
2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
ConSyGen, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since the 
period ended November 30, 2001.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on March 22, 2011, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 4, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7069 Filed 3-22-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit (99)(i)(a)

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The undersigned chief executive officer of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation hereby certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002
("Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation.

| |  | /s/ Mark P. Bulriss
Mark P. Bulriss, Chief Executive Officer
Dated: March 17, 2003
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99

CERTIFICATION

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Hastings Manufacturing Company (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  | /s/ Mark R.S. Johnson                                                                   
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | Mark R.S. Johnson
Chief Executive Officer                                               
|                      |  |                                                                                         
|                      |  |                                                                                         
|                      |  |                                                                                         
|Dated: March 31, 2003 |  | /s/ Thomas J. Bellgraph                                                                 
|                      |  | Thomas J. Bellgraph
Vice-President of Corporate Administration
(Chief financial officer)
§ 661.25 What does a complete application package for PE consist of and how does the project receive funding? ( a ) A complete application package for PE consists of the following: ( 1 ) The certification checklist;
( 2 ) Tribal Transportation Program (TTP) transportation improvement program (TIP);
( 3 ) Project scope of work;
( 4 ) Detailed cost for PE;
( 5 ) NBI data; and
( 6 ) An acknowledgment by the Tribe of the project specific funding requirements and that any excess funds will be returned to FHWA for further distribution.
( b ) For non-BIA/non-Tribally owned TTF bridges, the application package must also include a Tribal resolution supporting the project.
( c ) Incomplete application packages will be disapproved and returned for revision and resubmission along with an explanation providing the reason for disapproval.
( d ) The TTF bridge projects for PE will be placed in the queue and determined as eligible for funding after receipt by FHWA of a complete application package.
( e ) Funding for the approved eligible projects on the queues will be made available to the Tribes, under a TTP Program agreement between FHWA and a Tribal government, or the Secretary of the Interior upon availability of program funding at FHWA.