alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11076

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-108-ALL-P

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

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Dagoberto

Rodriguez-Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ Nos. 95-50911 95-50917 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MANUEL ENRIQUEZ-VARELA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC Nos. 94-CR-411 & 95-CR-106

- - - - - - - - - - June 3, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Manuel Enriquez-Varela appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). He argues that the district court erred in declining to award a two-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and in calculating his criminal history score.Nos. 95-50911 & 95-50917 -2- We have reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the district court's oral ruling and find no reversible error. The district court did not err in finding that Enriquez's conduct was not so extraordinary that adjustments for both obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility would be appropriate.
See United States v. Ayala , 47 F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court's calculation of Enriquez's criminal history score did not rise to the level of plain error. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
432 P.2d 264

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Lee ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8344.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 2, 1967.

*421David L. Norvell, Clovis, for appellant.

Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O. O’Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, Judge, Court of Appeals.

Defendant was denied post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93) N.M.S.A.1953 (Interim Supp.1966). In his appeal he asserts (1) that he was denied counsel when taken before the justice of the peace and (2) that he was not given and did not waive a preliminary hearing.

Defendant pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in district court. He was tried and found guilty by a jury. He was represented by counsel at arraignment and trial. He does not claim that his counsel was incompetent.

Absent a showing of prejudice, the plea at arraignment waived prior defects in the proceedings. Thus, by the plea: (1) he waived the claim that he was denied counsel in the proceedings prior to arraignment, State v. Cisneros, *77*N.M. 361, 423 P.2d 45 (1967); State v. Blackwell, 76 N.M. 445, 415 P.2d 563 (1966); Sanders v. Cox, 74 N.M. 524, 395 P.2d 353 (1964) ; and (2) he waived his right to a preliminary hearing. State v. Darrah, 76 N.M. 671, 417 P.2d 805 (1966); State v. Blackwell, supra; Sanders v. Cox, supra.

Here, while prejudice is claimed, it is not shown. Thus, defendant fails to set forth a basis for post-conviction relief. State v. Cisneros, supra; State v. Raburn, 76 N.M. 681, 417 P.2d 813 (1966); Sanders v. Cox, supra.

The order denying relief is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

NQBLE and MOISE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Q Comm International,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form  10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Paul Hickey,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     (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 results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Paul Hickey
------------------------
Paul Hickey
Chief Executive Officer

June 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                       4,778,174
<SECURITIES>                                17,424,700
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,709,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                   380,000
<INVENTORY>                                  8,379,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,749,681
<PP&E>                                      34,467,874
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,802,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,999,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,280,419
<BONDS>                                        328,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       547,564
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,027,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,999,827
<SALES>                                     95,459,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            95,459,661
<CGS>                                       71,515,491
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               71,515,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,005,572
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,306,930
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,698,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,698,642
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87


</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 78 E/0414)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1869/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject:   Pension losses

Is the Commission able to estimate the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits? Does the Commission believe that additional measures to safeguard pension provision are necessary, and does the extension of the single market mean that these should be at European level?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2003)

As this is a matter that falls within the responsibilities of the Member States and the two sides of industry, the Commission does not have estimates of the number of contributors to funded pension schemes who have been adversely affected by employer decisions either to terminate such schemes entirely, or to fail to make up the necessary level of contributions to assure defined benefits. Such data is also likely to be difficult to obtain at the national level.

The Union has no powers that would allow it to restrict the freedom of employers and workers to change occupational pension arrangements. Community legislation only requires Member States: ‘to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to protect the interests of employees and of persons having already left the employer's undertaking or business at the date of the onset of the employer's insolvency in respect of rights conferring on them immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age benefits, including survivors’ benefits, under supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes outside the national statutory social security schemes.' (Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1)). This does not prevent employers and workers to renegotiate pension entitlements and their accrual.

As to the recently adopted Council Directive 2003/41/EC of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (2), it requires institutions to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover their technical provisions. The minimum amount of technical provisions must be sufficient both for pensions and benefits already in payments and to reflect the commitments which arise out of members' accrued pension rights. The Directive, nevertheless, authorises Member States to allow institutions to operate with some underfunding provided they adopt a concrete and reasonable recovery plan to return to a level of full funding.

Member States will have 24 months after the publication in the Official Journal to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.

----

(1)OJ L 283, 28.10.1980.

(2)OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.

----
<PAGE>
                         Holobeam, Inc.
                            Form 10K
                       September 30, 2005
                           Exhibit E
                         Code of Ethics


Item 15, 3E.  Code of Ethics
     The Registrant has not yet adopted a Code of Ethics as it
currently utilizes the Registrant's Policies and Procedures
contained in its Management Manual.  At present the Registrant
has two (2) full-time employees, the President and CEO, and the
Secretary, and one (1) part-time employee, the Treasurer.
     The Registrant intends to convert the appropriate sections
of the Management Manual to its Code of Ethics, which will be
completed by September 30, 2006.
     The Registrant believes that the policies and procedures
contained in its management manual are consistent with the
requirements and intent of the Code of Ethics requirements.
     It is the intention of the Registrant to file the Code of
Ethics when completed, on or about September 30, 2006.


                                   39
<PAGE>
# Attendee Report GoToWebinar

Webinar Name Webinar ID ASRAC Commercial HVAC, CRE, and WH Working Group: Meeting and Webinar 362209081 Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) May 30, 2013 08:01 AM EDT 402 Total Attended 39 

# Session Details

First Name Last Name Email CountryAddress City StateOrganization Zip Code Viktor Anderson US 888 E. Porter Rd. Muskegon MI Structural Concepts Corp49441 Rod Beever US 491 E. princess St. York PA United CoolAir Corp. 17403 Brian Buynacek US 138 Ashwood Ln Orchard Park NY Emerson 14127 Jennifer Cleary US 1111 19th St NW Washington DCAHAM 20036 Steven Cousins US One Coca-Cola Plaza Atlanta GAThe Coca-Cola Company30313 Jim del Toro US Carrier Parkway Syracuse NY United Technologies 13057 Jeff Differt US 1118 S Neenah Ave Sturgeon Bay WI Hatco Corporation 54235 Thomas Echikson US 1101 Connecticut Ave., NWWashington DC LeClairRyan 20036 Jeremiah Freeman US DOE Washington DC New West Technologies, LLC200075 Keith Goshia US 975 Pittsburgh Dr Delaware OHDC Power 43021 Jonathan Hunt US 250 w laurel Colton CAWilliams Furnace Company92313 Marshall Hunt US 245 Market Street San Francisco CA Pacific Gas & Electric Company 94177 Diane Jakobs US 5600 Old Greenwood RoadFort Smith AR Rheem Heating and Cooling72921 brian jeanes US 908 HWY 15 North New Albany MSMaster-Bilt Products 38652 Dominic Kolandayan US 1645 Wallace Dr, Suite 110Carrollton TX Daikin AC (Americas), Inc.75006 Bill Larson US 891 county road U Hudson WI Norlake.com 54016 John McLaughlin US 4900 tech blvd Auburn NY Daikin McQuay 13021 Peter Molvie US 3232 W. Lancaster Ave. Milwaukee WI Cleaver-Brooks 53209 John Morris US 539 Dunksferry rd bensalem PA Continental Refrigerator 19020 massoud neshan US 275 drexel road bessemer AL southern store fixtures 35022 charity njau US 770 garrison ave bronx NY Felix Storch 10474 Mark Rabbua US carrier parkway syracuse NY Carrier Coprp 13221 

# General InformationDavid Ransom US 500 N. Capitol Street, NWWashington DC MWE 20155 Wes Roan US 1914 Randolph Dr. Bryan OHBard Manufacturing Co., Inc.43506 Joesph Sanders US 4401 Blue Mound Rd. Fort Worth TX Traulsen 76106 Jason Sands US 1 Delfield Drive Covington TN The Delfield Company 38019 Stephen Schaefer US 618 Hwy 74 South Peachtree city GAHoshizaki America 30269 Darshan Shinde US 5201 Transport Blvd Columbus GAHeatcraft 31909 Adam Spitz US 1725 I Street, NW, Suite 1000Washington DC ICF International 20006 Arnie Stephens US 1925 Ruffin Mill Road Colonial Heights VA Hillphoenix 23139 mvuala suami CA 580 Booth st ottawa ONNRCan K1A 0E4 Anwar Suharno US 5540 Ketch Road Prince Frederick MDEngineering 20678 Knute Svenson US 1200 19th St NW Washington DC Navigant 20036 Troy Trant US 2600 Gunter Park Drive EastMontgomery AL Rheem Manufacturing Company 36109 Eric Truskoski US 200 Lafayette St. Middleville MI Bradford White Corporation49333 Tom Walsh US 4900 Technology Park BlvdAuburn NY Daikin McQuay 13021 william warren US 831 e. cayuga philadelphia PA Howard Mccray 19124 kevin washington US 3600 w lake ave glenview IL ITW 60026 Michael Woodford US 2111Wilson Blvd., Suite 500Arlington VA AHRI 22201
### §§776 to 776f. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–5, §13, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 15

Section 776, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §2, 61 Stat. 511; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §§1–3, 71 Stat. 293, provided definitions for this chapter. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776a, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §3, 61 Stat. 511; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §3, 71 Stat. 294, related to unlawful acts by persons or vessels. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776b, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §4, 61 Stat. 512; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §3, 71 Stat. 294, related to penalties imposed for the omission of or fraudulent returns, records, and reports. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776c, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §5, 61 Stat. 512; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §3, 71 Stat. 294, related to penalties and forfeitures, and procedures involving violations. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776d, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §6, 61 Stat. 513; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §3, 71 Stat. 294; Oct. 17, 1968, Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), 82 Stat. 1118; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 4, eff. Oct. 3, 1970, 35 F.R. 15627, 84 Stat. 2090, provided enforcement procedures for this chapter. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776e, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §7, 61 Stat. 514; July 11, 1957, Pub. L. 85–102, §4, 71 Stat. 294, related to the cooperation of Federal agencies and the conduct of scientific investigations. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

Section 776f, acts July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §8, 61 Stat. 514; Oct. 18, 1972, Pub. L. 92–504, 86 Stat. 907, related to authorizations. See section 3631 et seq. of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 99–5, §13, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 15, provided that the repeal of this chapter is effective Dec. 31, 1985.

#### Effective Date

Act July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §10, 61 Stat. 514, which provided that this Act [this chapter] shall be effective thirty days from the date of its approval [July 29, 1947], was repealed by Pub. L. 99–5, §13, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 15.

#### Short Title

Act July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §1, 61 Stat. 511, as amended by Pub. L. 85–102, §3, July 11, 1957, 71 Stat. 294, which provided that this Act [this chapter] may be cited as the "Sockeye Salmon or Pink Salmon Fishing Act of 1947", was repealed by Pub. L. 99–5, §13, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 15.

#### Savings Provision

Act July 29, 1947, ch. 345, §9, 61 Stat. 514, which provided that if any provision of this Act [this chapter] is held invalid for any cause, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions hereof, was repealed by Pub. L. 99–5, §13, Mar. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 15.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LONNIE GLEN SCHMIDT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-89-114-C, CA-95-338-3-P) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lonnie Glen Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. 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. United States v. Schmidt , Nos. CR-89-114-C; CA-95-338-3-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995).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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 92027 / May 26, 2021

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary suspension, pursuant to 

Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, of trading in the securities of Minerco, 

Inc. (MINE) (CIK No. 0001451514), of Henderson, Nevada at 9:30 a.m. EDT on May 27, 2021, 

and terminating at 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 10, 2021. 

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of Minerco, Inc. because of 

questions and concerns regarding the adequacy and accuracy of information about the Company 

in the marketplace and unusual and unexplained activity affecting the market for its securities. 

These include questions and concerns about the status of its corporate organization, its 

ownership, the accuracy and completeness of its public statements to investors about its 

activities, inconsistencies between its statements on social media and in its press releases as 

compared to its financial disclosures on www.OTCMarkets.com, and the possibility of 

manipulation of the market for its securities. 

The Commission cautions broker-dealers, shareholders, and prospective purchasers that they 

should carefully consider the foregoing information along with all other currently available 

information and any information subsequently issued by the company. 

Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that, pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the 

Exchange Act, at the termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be entered unless 

and until they have strictly complied with all of the provisions of the rule. If any broker or dealer 

has any questions as to whether or not it has complied with the rule, it should not enter any 

quotation but immediately contact the staff in the Division of Trading and Markets, Office of

Interpretation and Guidance, at (202) 551-5777. If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is 

required by Rule 15c2-11, it should refrain from entering quotations relating to Minerco, Inc. 

securities until such time as it has familiarized itself with the rule and is certain that all of its 

provisions have been met. If any broker or dealer enters any quotation which is in violation of 

the rule, the Commission will consider the need for prompt enforcement action.

If any broker-dealer or other person has any information that may relate to this matter, they 

should immediately contact C. Joshua Felker, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-4960.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-02T05:04:57-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
**EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Kurt R. Moore, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ablest Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,2006 (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                            /s/ Kurt R. Moore   Kurt R. Moore   President and Chief Executive Officer   March 12, 2007
### §511. Reinstatement of entries canceled or relinquished

All homestead entries which have been canceled or relinquished, or are invalid solely because of the erroneous allowance of such entries after the withdrawal of lands for national-forest purposes, may be reinstated or allowed to remain intact, but in the case of entries canceled prior to March 3, 1911, applications for reinstatement must have been filed in the proper local land office prior to July 1, 1912.

(Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 225, §1, 36 Stat. 1084.)