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

No. 01-4940.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 18, 2002.

Decided May 9, 2002.

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office Of The United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Marcus Lloyd appeals the district court’s amended judgment of conviction sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment after this court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for resentencing. This court held the district court erred by not imposing a two-level enhancement to the offense level for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. At resentencing, the district court added the two-level enhancement and sentenced Lloyd to the low end of the sentencing guideline range. Lloyd’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Lloyd was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government has not filed a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Lloyd’s term of imprisonment was within the proper sentencing guidelines range. In addition, it was less than the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Accordingly, there is no error in Lloyd’s sentence.

As required by *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We affirm the district court’s amended judgment of conviction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *120and 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. 72856 / August 15, 2014

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-15211

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

GREGG C. LORENZO, : ORDER APPOINTING

FRANCIS V. LORENZO, AND : TAX ADMINISTRATOR

CHARLES VISTA, LLC, :

:

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

By order dated January 17, 2013, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”), Rel. No. 34-68683, authorizing the 

Secretary to issue orders during calendar years 2013-2015 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 August 15, 2014, 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.

Lynn M. Powalski

Deputy Secretary
§ 222.64 When is a local educational agency eligible as a new applicant for payment under section 8003(b)(2)(C)? A new heavily impacted LEA must have— ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) Federally connected children equal to at least 50 percent of the total number of children in average daily attendance (ADA) in the LEA if children described in section 8003(a)(1)(F)-(G) are eligible to be counted for a section 8003(b)(1) payment; or
( ii ) Federally connected children equal to at least 40 percent of the total number of children in ADA if children described in section 8003(a)(1)(F)-(G) are not eligible to be counted for a section 8003(b)(1) payment; and
( 2 ) ( i ) If the LEA has a total ADA of more than 350 children, ( A ) A per pupil expenditure (PPE) that is less than the average of the State in which the LEA is located; and
( B ) A tax rate for general fund purposes equal to at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74 or of all LEAs in the applicant's State; or
( ii ) If the LEA has a total ADA of less than 350 children, ( A ) A PPE that is less than the average PPE of one or three generally comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74(b); and
( B ) A tax rate equal to at least 95 percent of the average tax rate of one or three generally comparable LEAs identified in § 222.74(b);
( b ) The same boundaries as those of a Federal military installation; or
( c ) ( 1 ) The same boundaries as island property held in trust by the Federal government;
( 2 ) No taxing authority; and
( 3 ) Received a payment under section 8003(b)(1) for fiscal year 2001.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))
Exhibit 32.1


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 Annual Report of Hawkins, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 29, 2015 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick H. Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Patrick H. HawkinsPatrick H. HawkinsChief Executive Officer and PresidentJune 19, 2015
### §410ww–8. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this part.

(Pub. L. 102–419, title I, §109, Oct. 16, 1992, 106 Stat. 2143; Pub. L. 106–356, §2(b), Oct. 24, 2000, 114 Stat. 1391.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–356 struck out ": Provided, That the amount to be appropriated for the operation, development or restoration of non-federally owned properties within the boundaries of the park shall not exceed $200,000" after "this part".
!  	
"   #!$%&'()$(

	 



*
+	



	

 
!"
! 

#$! #
#%"#&'('
''

)	$

,, ,

	 #
*+,-./0'

	 &


!	'+1 

"! 	"#1!

1" 

!#
"'

	 "!

"#

""""#1"##1"

#"	
"""
"

"'"!

"

#"	'

	 +1  " 
2#

 !03 ( *+')4'

)	 "#
!
 



" "#"	
#" #

"5"
1	 "	"1!



"!
 '-

#!1"#

""

6 7

5"
1'

89999999999999 99999999999999999999999999

&(:5"
;" 



0*58999999999999999999

-58

	
	
						

	
	



			

				

 !"
#	$	%%&	

$	'(

)*+	,&--


	


::

)<("1!"

('
3

May 10 2018 /s/ Kevin R. Huennekens

May 10 2018

Case 16-35915-KRH Doc 54 Filed 05/10/18 Entered 05/10/18 13:58:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-35915-KRH Doc 54 Filed 05/10/18 Entered 05/10/18 13:58:37 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                 EXHIBIT 23

                 Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Hibernia Corporation of our report dated January 10,
1996, included in the 1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of 
Hibernia Corporation.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Hibernia Corporation Registration Statements
     
     Form S-3 No. 33-26553 (dated February 21, 1989)
     Form S-8 No. 2-81353 (dated February 23, 1989)
     Form S-8 No. 33-26871 (dated February 23, 1989)
     Form S-3 No. 33-37701 (dated January 31, 1991)
     Form S-8 No. 2-96194 (dated April 8, 1991)
     Form S-3 No. 33-53108 (dated December 28, 1992)
     Form S-3 No. 33-55844 (dated December 28, 1992)
     Form S-8 No. 33-59743 (dated January 1, 1995)
     Form S-4 No. 33-63477 (dated November 1, 1995)
     Form S-4 No. 33-64365 (dated November 22, 1995)

of our report dated January 10, 1996, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Hibernia Corporation
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31,1995.


                                     s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New Orleans, Louisiana
March 25, 1996
#### Gayle Z.. Combs, as Administrator of the Estate of Arney Van DeWater, Deceased, Respondent, v. Carl Frey et al., Appellants.

Present'— Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ. -
#### § 341.3 Depositions.

If satisfied that a witness whose testimony is essential is not available for examination in the United States, the assigned officer may authorize the taking of a deposition abroad by written interrogatories before a DHS or Department of State official.

[30 FR 5472, Apr. 16, 1965, as amended at 76 FR 53804, Aug. 29, 2011]
§ 222.9 What records must a local educational agency maintain? Except as otherwise provided in § 222.10— ( a ) An LEA must maintain adequate written records to support the amount of payment it received under the Act for any fiscal year;
( b ) On request, the LEA must make its records available to the Secretary for the purpose of examination or audit; and
( c ) Each applicant must submit such reports and information as the Secretary may require to determine the amount that the applicant may be paid under the Act.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0036) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232f, 7702, 7703, 7704, 7706)
### **CHAPTER 23—CONTRACTS**

Sec.
431.
Contracts by Member of Congress.
432.
Officer or employee contracting with Member of Congress.
433.
Exemptions with respect to certain contracts.
[434.
Repealed.]
435.
Contracts in excess of specific appropriation.
436.
Convict labor contracts.
[437.
Repealed.]
438.
Indian contracts for services generally. 1

439.
Indian enrollment contracts. 1
440.
Mail contracts.
441.
Postal supply contracts.
442.
Government Publishing Office.
443.
War contracts.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2019**—Pub. L. 116–78, §1(b), Dec. 5, 2019, 133 Stat. 1176, substituted "Government Publishing Office" for "Printing contracts" in item 442.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–178, §1(b), Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1565, struck out item 437 "Federal employees contracting or trading with Indians".

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330010(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2144, struck out extraneous period after "Indians" in item 437.

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXV, §3512, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4922, struck out item 434 "Interested persons acting as Government agents" and substituted "Federal employees contracting or trading with Indians." for "Indian contracts for goods and supplies" in item 437.

**1951**—Act Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §18, 65 Stat. 717, struck out "; exceptions" from item 431.

1  Section repealed by Pub. L. 106–568 without corresponding amendment of chapter analysis.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 Malta 

Field Office Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula 

Field Office 

Lewistown 

Field Office 

Miles City 

Butte Field Office 

Field 

Office Billings 

Field Office 

Dillon 

Field Office Butte Field Office 

0 400 

Miles Draft RMP/EIS 

Map 19: Boulder/Jefferson City 

Travel Plan Route Designations 

Under Alternative B 

BLM Routes 

Open Yearlong Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) 

Closed Yearlong Bureau of Reclamation 

Decommission County / City Government 

BLM Routes with Restrictions 

Private Closed 12/2 to 5/15 

State Lands Other Routes 

Other Federal Lands Public Access Route 

US Forest Service (USFS) Non-BLM Route 

Water Interstate Boulder 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land County Boundary 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or US Highway completeness of these data for individual 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may Field Office / TPA Boundary not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through State Highway 

digital means and information may be updated without notification. 

Railroad 

Miles 

04 

Map Scale 1:50,000 Map shows proposed road management within the Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Area under 

Alternative B. Under this alternative 3.7 miles of road would be Open yearlong, 23.6 miles of road Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 would be Open with a seasonal closure from December 2 to May 15, 30.5 miles of road would be 

Closed yearlong, and 2.7 miles of road would be Decommissioned. Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection
#### § 335.10 Withdrawal of application.

An applicant may request, in writing, that his or her application, filed with USCIS, be withdrawn. If USCIS consents to the withdrawal, the application will be denied without further notice to the applicant and without prejudice to any future application. The withdrawal by the applicant will constitute a waiver of any review pursuant to part 336 of this chapter. If USCIS does not consent to the withdrawal, the application for naturalization shall be adjudicated on its merits.

[56 FR 50498, Oct. 7, 1991, as amended at 76 FR 53801, Aug. 29, 2011]
exv10w67



 






EXHIBIT
10.67




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

SECURITY AGREEMENT




      Commerce Energy, Inc. (Customer) and Tenaska Power Services Co. (“TPS”) are Parties to the
Security Agreement effective August 1, 2005 (“Agreement”). Commerce Energy and TPS enter into
this First Amendment to the Agreement (“First Amendment”) effective March 7, 2006
(“Effective Date”).



      WHEREAS, Customer and TPS are Parties to the Agreement;



      WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to clarify the calculation of Customer’s
Credit Exposure Ratio under the Agreement; and



      Now, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged by both Parties, Customer and TPS hereby agree as follows:



FIRST AMENDMENT





	1.	 	Unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment, capitalized terms used in this First
Amendment shall have the same meaning as that Oven to such terms in the Agreement.
	 
	2.	 	The Parties agree to amend Section 6 (1)(iii) of the Agreement by inserting after the
phrase “the current month,” and before the phrase “plus” the following language:






“, including the Current Mark-to-Market Value of each Transaction as calculated
pursuant to the Master Agreement,”




	3.	 	Unless expressly changed by this First Amendment, all other terms of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect.






	4.	 	This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, including facsimile
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.






This First Amendment contains the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the
subject matter of this First Amendment and supersedes any previous understandings,
commitments, or agreements, oral or written, with respect to such subject matter of this
First Amendment.



      WHEREFORE, the Parties acknowledge and agree to this First Amendment effective as of the
Effective Date.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	      COMMERCE ENERGY, INC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Trudy Harper
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Steven S. Boss
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	NAME:

	 	Trudy Harper
	 	 	 	NAME:
	 	Steven S. Boss
	TITLE:

	 	President
	 	 	 	TITLE:
	 	Chief Executive Officer






1
§ 330.2 Application. ( a ) An applicant for naturalization under section 330 of the Act must submit an application on the form designated by USCIS.
( b ) An applicant under this part must submit authenticated copies of the records and certificates of either: ( 1 ) The Executive Department or Agencies having custody of records reflecting the applicant's service on a vessel in United States Government Service, if the applicant provided service under § 330.1(b)(1); or
( 2 ) The masters of those vessels maintaining a home port in the United States, and either registered under the laws of the United States or owned by United States citizens or corporations, if the applicant provided service under § 330.1(b)(2).
[56 FR 50493, Oct. 7, 1991, as amended at 74 FR 26941, June 5, 2009; 76 FR 53800, Aug. 29, 2011]
#### David Adam ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6164.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

David Adam Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

David Adam Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Robinson v. Conroy,*No. CA-01-1671-AMD (D.Md. Jan. 16, 2002). 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.*
#### § 636.508 Can price or cost be an issue in discussions?

You may inform an offeror that its price is considered to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion. At your discretion, you may indicate to all offerors your estimated cost for the project.
EXHIBIT 32.1


The following certification  accompanies North Bay Bancorp's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and
IC 25967, dated March 21, 2003.


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay
Bancorp  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005,  I,  Terry L.  Robinson,
President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of North Bay  Bancorp,  hereby  certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:


(1)  such  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of North Bay  Bancorp  for the quarter
     ended September 30, 2005,  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 such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of North
     Bay Bancorp for the quarter ended September 30, 2005,  fairly presents,  in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     North Bay Bancorp.


Dated:    November 14 , 2005


                                          /s/ Terry L. Robinson
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         TERRY L. ROBINSON
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         Principal Executive Officer


                                       25
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Franklin Dwayne VOGUES, Appellant

No. 01-3851.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 25, 2002.

Filed May 8, 2002.

Before BECKER, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

Under a plea agreement, Franklin Dwayne Vogues pled guilty to failure to surrender for service of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3146(a)(2). He was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. The issue on appeal is whether Vogues’s Criminal History Score was treated properly under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2.

I.

On November 6, 2000, Vogues failed to surrender to serve a sentence of three years’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release resulting from his conviction for being a felon in possession of a weapon (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)). Vogues has two other past felony convictions. On January 11, 1995 and November 16, 1995, he was arrested for cocaine possession. On June 6,1996, Vogues was sentenced to two five-year sentences one on each conviction to be served concurrently.

In this case, Vogues’s base offense level was 11. U.S.S.G. 2J1.6(a)(1). Two levels were reduced for acceptance of responsibility. Id. 3E1.1(a). With a total offense level of 9 and a Criminal History Category of IV, Vogues’s applicable sentence range was twelve to eighteen months. The District Court sentenced him to sixteen months’ imprisonment. Vogues objects to his placement in Criminal History Category IV.

II.

Vogues contends the District Court misapplied the sentencing guidelines in calculating his Criminal History Score. We review de novo. United States v. Hallman, 23 F.3d 821, 823 (3d Cir.1994). Vogues asserts his 1995 cocaine convictions are so “related” they should have been treated as one under U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(a)(2). But an intervening arrest renders similar offenses “unrelated” for purposes of the applicable guideline. U.S.S.G. 4A1.2 app. n. 3; see also Hallman, 23 F.3d at 825. Vogues’s 1995 arrests were separated by ten months. He committed the second crime while out on bail for the first. Given these circumstances, the District Court properly calculated Vogues’s Criminal History points.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
#### Morris Markowitz v. E. J. Wile Company.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

65) ll-K-(B)-53 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:50 AM Sheet 65 of 325 
P.2 

0 

!T ®^)a

£B 

II-K-(B)-53 

INDUSTRIAL ANNUALIZED FUEL PRICES BY REGION AND FUEL 

TYPE. 

Letter T. Hogan, EEA to L. Jones, EPArSASD. 

August 18, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-53