alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION 

Temecula Band of Lutsefio Mission Indians 

Post Office Box 1477 • Temecula, CA 92593 

Telephone (951) 770-6000 Fax (951) 695-1778 

TRIBAL COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ORDER 

OF THE 

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS 

PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION 

EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 141104-4.1 

Tribal Chairman: 

Mark Macarro 

Council Members: 

Catalina R. Chacon 

Corrina R. Garbani Sanchez 

Marc Luker 

Andrew Masiel, Sr. 

Robert "R.J." Munoa 

Russell "Butch" Murphy 

Tribal Secretary: 

Louise Burke 

Tribal Treasurer: 

Christina McMenamin 

PURPOSE: To submit the Pechanga Tribal Implementation Plan ("TIP") for the 8-hour 

ozone standard as part of the Tribe's Treatment as a State (T AS) 

application under the Clean Air Act for review and approval by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). 

WHEREAS: The Temecula Band of Luisefio Mission Indians, sometimes referred to 

as the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, federally recognized as the 

Pechanga Band of Luisefio Mission Indians of the Pechanga Indian 

Reservation (hereinafter "the Band") is a sovereign, federally recognized 

Indian tribe; and 

WHEREAS: The Pechanga General Membership is the governing body of the Pechanga 

Indian Reservation and is governed by the Band's Constitution and 

Bylaws; and 

WHEREAS: The Band desires to promote and protect its customs and traditions, rights, 

interests, common welfare, and enhance senrices to its members; and 

WHEREAS: The Pechanga General Membership has delegated the authority to the 

Pechanga Tribal Council to apply to, negotiate and obtain federal approval 

for tribal environmental programs; and 

WHEREAS: The TIP will be utilized to protect the natural environment of the Pechanga 

Indian Reservation; and 

WHEREAS: The TIP will enhance the sovereignty and self-determination of the Band; 

and 

WHEREAS: The Band asserts and affirms its sovereign status and powers, and affirms 

the Federal Government's trust obligations to it through the exercise of 

#!BAPR6LOODl2DJvl 

Page I of2 
government-to-government relations, and affirms the exercise and assertion 

of tribal jurisdiction. 

THEREFORE BE IT NOW RESOLVED THAT: the Pechanga Band hereby submits its 

TIP to the EPA for approval. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: the Tribal Chairperson shall have the authority to 

negotiate and execute all applications, proposals, contracts, awards or other documents 

pertinent to the TIP. 

CERTIFICATION 

We, the undersigned, the duly elected officers of the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Mission 

Indians, do hereby certify that the foregoing Executive Order was adopted by the Pechanga 

Tribal Council at a duly called Tribal Council meeting conducted on November 4, 2014, by 

a vote of__§_ for, _Q_ opposed, and _Q_ abstaining, and said Executive Order has not been 

rescinded or amended in any way. 

~~Mark Macarro, Tribal Chairman ~ 

Marc Luker, Councilman 

PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION # IBAPR6LOOD 12DJv I 

Temecula Band of Luisefw Indians
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

** **

In connection with Amendment No. 1 tothe Annual Report of Clayton Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/Afor the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank P. Filipps,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Frederick C. Herbst, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, toour knowledge, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: April 29, 2008

 

 
| By:        | /s/ Frank P. Filipps    |                        |
|------------|-------------------------|-----------------------------|
| ** ** | ** **              | **Frank P. Filipps**        | ** ** |
| ** ** |                    | **Chief Executive Officer** |   |
|       |                    |                        |
| By:        | /s/ Frederick C. Herbst |                        |
| ** ** | ** **              | **Frederick C. Herbst**     | ** ** |
| ** ** |                    | **Chief Financial Officer** |   |

 

----
#### Albert N. Anson, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. The Savings Bank of Utica, Respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000732026
<NAME> TRIO-TECH INTERNATIONAL
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995
<CASH>                                             985
<SECURITIES>                                      1906
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9862
<PP&E>                                           17538
<DEPRECIATION>                                   12315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6944
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                          4848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     15543
<SALES>                                          11322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11322
<CGS>                                             7084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (449)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1850
<INCOME-TAX>                                       743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1107
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (789)
<NET-INCOME>                                       318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906****OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PACCAR Financial Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned certify,  pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.section 1350), that to the bestof our knowledge and belief:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date   | November 7, 2003 |                                                                                   | By | /s/ Mark C. Pigott  |
|------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----|--------------------------|
|             |                  | Mark C. Pigott  Chairman  PACCAR Financial Corp.  (chief executive officer)            |
|             |                  |                                                                                   |
|             |                  |                                                                                   |
|             | By                    | /s/ Michael A. Tembreull                                                               |
|             |                  | Michael A. Tembreull  Vice Chairman  PACCAR Financial Corp.  (chief financial officer) |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

1

----
§ 404.288 Recomputing when you are entitled to a monthly pension based on noncovered employment. ( a ) *After entitlement to old-age or disability insurance benefits.* If you first become eligible for old-age or disability insurance benefits after 1985 and you later become entitled to a monthly pension based on noncovered employment, we may recompute your primary insurance amount under the rules in § 404.213. When recomputing, we will use the amount of the pension to which you are entitled or deemed entitled in the first month that you are concurrently eligible for both the pension and old-age or disability insurance benefits. We will disregard the rule in § 404.284(e) that the recomputation must increase your primary insurance amount by at least $1.
( b ) *Already entitled to benefits and to a pension based on noncovered employment.* If we have already computed or recomputed your primary insurance amount to take into account your monthly pension, we may later recompute for one of the reasons explained in § 404.281. We will recompute your primary insurance amount under the rules in §§ 404.213 and 404.284. Any increase resulting from the recomputation under the rules of § 404.284 will be added to the most recent primary insurance amount which we had computed to take into account your monthly pension.
( c ) *After your death.* If one or more survivors are entitled to benefits after your death, we will recompute the primary insurance amount as though it had never been affected by your entitlement to a monthly pension based in whole or in part on noncovered employment.
[52 FR 47918, Dec. 17, 1987]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge ANGEL-LEONARDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40410.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

*614James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Angel-Leonardo appeals his conviction and sentence for being found unlawfully present in the United States following deportation and after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Angel-Leonardo was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 months to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

Angel-Leonardo argues that the enhancement provisions in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which provides for increased sentences based on prior convictions, are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He contends that his conviction should be reduced to the lesser included offense in § 1326(a)(2) and that his sentence should be reduced to no more than two years of imprisonment.

Angel-Leonardo’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Angel-Leonardo contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Angel-Leonardo properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit *615precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Michael K. FarrellMichael K. FarrellChairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT12.2**

** **

**FORM 10-Q**

**PACCARFINANCIAL CORP.**

 

**COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO THE SUPPORT AGREEMENTBETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR****(Millions of Dollars)**

 
|                               |   | **Six Months  Ended  June 30** |     |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|----------|
|                               |   | **2003**                       |     | **2002** |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                      |   |                           |     |   |   |
| Interest expense                   |   | **$**                          | **43.7** |   | $ | 61.3 |   |
| Facility and equipment rental      |   | **.9**                         |     | .8 |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |   | **$**                          | **44.6** |   | $ | 62.1 |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
| EARNINGS                           |   |                           |     |   |   |
| Income before income taxes         |   | **$**                          | **35.3** |   | $ | 12.4 |   |
| Depreciation                       |   | **12.4**                       |     | 6.6 |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
|                               |   | **47.7**                       |     | 19.0 |   |
| Fixed charges                      |   | **44.6**                       |     | 62.1 |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |   | **$**                          | **92.3** |   | $ | 81.1 |   |
|                               |   |                           |     |   |   |
| RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |   | **2.07x**                      |     | 1.31x |   |

 

1

----
### §879. Search warrants

A search warrant relating to offenses involving controlled substances may be served at any time of the day or night if the judge or United States magistrate judge issuing the warrant is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that grounds exist for the warrant and for its service at such time.

(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §509, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1274; Pub. L. 93–481, §3, Oct. 26, 1974, 88 Stat. 1455; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1974—Pub. L. 93–481 struck out designation "(a)" before "A search warrant", and struck out subsec. (b) which permitted officers authorized to execute search warrants to break open and enter premises under certain circumstances and which required that such officers identify themselves and give reasons and authority for their entry after such entry.

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

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judge" substituted in text for "United States magistrate" pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
AMERITECH CORPORATION'S MARCH 31, 1998 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         148,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,289,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (327,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    348,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,966,000
<PP&E>                                      34,858,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,958,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,953,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,286,000
<BONDS>                                      7,019,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,177,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,350,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,953,000
<SALES>                                              0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,133,000
<CGS>                                                0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,228,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (51,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             175,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                781,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   289,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            492,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   492,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.45<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.44<F4>
<FN>
<F1>WE HAVE NOT STATED SECURITIES SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MATERIAL. WE HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN THE "CASH" TAG.
<F2>NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
REVENUES. WE THEREFORE HAVE NOT STATED THESE SALES SEPARATELY IN THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PER REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B). WE HAVE INCLUDED
THESE SALES IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3>WE HAVE INCLUDED COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IN COST OF SERVICE AND
PRODUCTS IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PER REGULATION
S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
<F4>WE HAVE CALCULATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAS
128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN PLACE
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
485 P.2d 355

#### Amy B. COLE, formerly Amy B. Adler, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Scott ADLER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 9152.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

April 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1971.

Grantham, Spann, Sanchez & Rager, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James C. Ritchie, L. Lanning Sigler, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

Appellant filed this action in Bernalillo County District Court seeking divorce, division of property and custody of the three minor children of the parties. A separation agreement entered into by the parties *600was approved by the trial court in the final decree. Custody of the three children of the parties was awarded to appellant in accordance therewith. Thereafter, appellant changed her domicile to California and a supplemental agreement was executed by the parties and approved by the court, whereby custody of the children remained in the appellant in California during the regular school term each year with the appellee to have their custody in New Mexico during the summer months.

' In August, 1969, the appellee refused to return the youngest child, Brian Adler, to California and filed a motion to modify the decree to obtain custody of this child. Appellant resisted the motion and upon a hearing, the court modified the prior decree and supplemental agreement and awarded custody of the child to appellee with visitation rights in the appellant. Appellant has appealed from this order.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a finding by the trial court that a change of custody was for the best interest and welfare of the child. We find the evidence to be substantial. Compare State v. Armstrong, 82 N.M. 358, 482 P.2d 61; Samora v. Bradford, 81 N.M. 205, 465 P.2d 88; McCauley v. Ray, 80 N.M. 171, 453 P.2d 192; Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company, 78 N.M. 86, 428 P.2d 625. The evidence amply supports the finding of the trial court. The evidence showed that the child had not been able to function properly while in school in California due to various emotional problems precipitated from the environment in which he had been living. These problems were alleviated to a great extent when the boy was with the appellee and had begun attending school in Albuquerque on a regular basis, with special assistance.

Trial courts are vested with wide discretion in determining whether a custodial decree should be modified. Kotrola v. Kotrola, 79 N.M. 258, 442 P.2d 570. In making such determination the welfare of the child is the controlling factor. Terry v. Terry, 82 N.M. 113, 476 P.2d 772; Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 438 P.2d 153. The evidence shows that the trial court was guided by this criterion in changing custody.

The order of the trial court should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

TACKETT and McMANUS, JJ., concur.