alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 8.1
 Registrants Subsidiaries
    
    Jurisdiction of FormationAdventure Two S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Three S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Four S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Five S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Six S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Seven S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Eight S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Nine S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Ten S.A.
    
    Marshall IslandsAdventure Eleven S.A.
    
    Marshall Islands
#### John V. Ritts, Respondent, v. Buffalo and Williamsville Electric Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Foote, J., who dissented upon the ground that plaintiff does not own the fee of the land in the highway. The title of his grantor, Thayer, extended only to its north line.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3
 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Compliance
 
 Report of
Management on Compliance Report of Management on Compliance
  
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP Des Moines,
IowaMarch 13, 2006




---



##### 



Report of Management on Compliance
  /s/ Ellen Z. Lamale




---



##### 



Exhibit A
Specified Standards
 I. Funding Agreement Payments
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 II. Guarantee Payments in Support of the Payment of Amounts Due on the Funding Agreement
  1.
    
    calculated according to the terms of the Funding Agreement; and2.
    
    promptly paid, within two business days of the due date, to the Indenture
Trustee at the direction of the appropriate Principal Life Income Fundings Trust.
 III. Payments Under Indenture
# C_2012281EN.01000301.xml

| 18.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/3

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2012/C 281/04

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 30.7.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 30.7.2012-31.12.2012 |
| Member State | Spain |
| Stock or group of stocks | RNG 5B67- |
| Species | Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of Vb, VI, VII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | FS16DSS |

Date and time of closure

30.7.2012

Duration

30.7.2012-31.12.2012

Member State

Spain

Stock or group of stocks

RNG 5B67-

Species

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)

Coryphaenoides rupestris

Zone

EU and international waters of Vb, VI, VII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

FS16DSS

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEVATION

 239.11

 239.10

 239.06

 239.05

 239.02

 238.85

 238.57

 238.58

 238.61

 238.54

 238.63

 238.46

 238.38

 238.36

 238.41

 238.44

 238.43

 238.41

 238.39

 238.39

 238.40

 238.52

 238.51

 238.51

 238.52

 238.56

 238.58

 238.54

 238.56

 238.72

 238.75

 363

 362

 357

 356

 352

 335

 306

 307

 310

 303

 312

 295

 287

 285

 290

 293

 292

 290

 288

 288

 289

 301

 300

 300

 301

 305

 307

 303

 305

 321

 325

STORAGE

+3

-1

-5

-1

-4

-17

-29

+1

+3

-7

+9

-17

-8

-2

+5

+3

-1

-2

-2

+0

+1

+12

-1

+0

+1

+4

+2

-4

+2

+16

+4

CHANGE

 100

 146

 235

 224

 252

 208

 215

 186

 199

 109

 233

 259

 234

 128

 136

 93

 102

 96

 245

 245

 134

 208

 135

 119

 840

 115

 120

 143

 7

 0

 0

 7,650

 7,612

 7,366

 7,414

 7,122

 6,964

 6,879

 6,950

 7,244

 7,419

 7,311

 6,944

 6,813

 6,998

 7,274

 7,299

 7,201

 7,112

 7,201

 7,201

 7,201

 7,201

 7,100

 6,994

 7,311

 7,482

 7,586

 7,314

 7,299

 8,106

 8,002

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2001 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 16, 2001

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -35 5,466 225,570

ACRE-FEET -35 10,842 447,418

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 460,134

 360

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 30

 37

 42

 52

 54

 47

 39

 21

 7

 46

 32

 39

 35

 27

 22

 23

 26

 35

 18

 18

 27

 20

 22

 38

 40

 42

 37

 25

 26

 0

 18

 945

 1,874

CORNING CANAL 1,874

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 10,842

TO SACTO RIVER 447,418

Table 9
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4046 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4046

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2016

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, as the Second Lt. 
                 Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SECOND LT. ELLEN AINSWORTH MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Second Lt. 
Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 Quarterly  Report of Consolidated  Resources  Health Care
Fund II (the  "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, John F. McMullan,  Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the  Partnership,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2) The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material respects,  the financial  condition and result of the operations of the
Partnership.

This Certification is qualified by the fact that the Report was not filed within
45 days after the end of the Partnership's fiscal quarter as required by General
Instruction A to Form 10-Q.

Date: August 5, 2004       By: /s/ John F. McMullan
     ----------               --------------------------------------------------
                              John F. McMullan
                              Chief Financial Officer (chief executive and
                              chief financial officer of the Partnership)
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20178

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON MICHAEL CARPENTER

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-90-1

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jason Michael Carpenter has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Carpenter has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 11,762

 12,078

 12,513

 13,249

 13,604

 14,433

 15,550

 15,416

 13,183

 13,073

 12,382

 11,302

 12,264

 12,647

 11,843

 12,796

 13,188

 13,524

 13,070

 12,585

 14,583

 15,050

 14,047

 14,736

 14,403

 13,907

 11,957

 10,314

 8,933

 9,690

 4,886

 5,189

 5,466

 5,140

 5,496

 5,051

 5,289

 5,414

 5,815

 4,607

 4,773

 3,998

 4,461

 5,791

 5,516

 5,989

 5,816

 5,558

 5,646

 5,570

 5,842

 5,817

 5,606

 4,969

 4,934

 4,965

 5,353

 4,747

 3,910

 3,831

 8,186

 8,529

 8,850

 8,893

 8,837

 9,086

 9,608

 10,163

 9,241

 8,683

 8,710

 8,100

 9,079

 9,365

 8,734

 9,212

 9,277

 9,010

 9,202

 9,051

 9,969

 10,016

 9,204

 9,190

 8,517

 9,088

 8,940

 7,508

 6,404

 6,180

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 4, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-14-00283-CV

JERRY V. DURANT; JERRY DURANT,

INC. D/B/A DURANT TOYOTA AND 

D/B/A JERRY DURANT TOYOTA; JERRY 

DURANT HYUNDAI, LLC; DOYLE 

MAYNARD; ROBERT G. COTE SR.;

GARY MICHAEL DEERE; JERRY RASH;

AND ELLIOT “SCOOTER” MICHELSON,

Appellants

V.

ANDREW ANDERSON, Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant County (153-257626-12)

March 19, 2020

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT ON REMAND

This appeal is on remand from the Texas Supreme Court. 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s defamation judgment. We reverse that portion of 

the trial court’s judgment finding and apportioning defamation liability against 

appellant Doyle Maynard and render a take-nothing judgment in his favor. We affirm 

the remainder of the defamation liability judgment. We affirm the awarded and 
remanded defamation damages conditioned on our suggestion of a $584,999 

remittitur, which includes the settlement credit. If appellee Andrew Anderson timely 

files the suggested remittitur with the trial court clerk no later than fifteen days after

this judgment, we will modify the amount of defamation damages and affirm those 

damages as modified. Otherwise, we will reverse the trial court’s defamation 

judgment for a new trial on appellee Andrew Anderson’s defamation claim against 

appellants Jerry V. Durant, Robert G. Cote Sr., Gary Michael Deere, Jerry Rash, and 

Elliot “Scooter” Michelson and on those awarded defamation damages that were 

supported by legally sufficient evidence.

But after considering the record on appeal regarding appellant Andrew 

Anderson’s fraudulent-inducement claim, we find no error in the trial court’s 

judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s fraudulent-inducement judgment. 

The costs in this court are taxed against the party that incurred the cost.

It is further ordered that to the extent the supersedeas bond (which was filed 

by appellants Jerry V. Durant; Jerry Durant, Inc. d/b/a Durant Toyota and d/b/a 

Jerry Durant Toyota; and Jerry Durant Hyundai, LLC) was effective to supersede the 

trial court’s judgment, appellee Andrew Anderson shall have and recover of and from

those specified appellants and their surety, Jerry’s GM, LLC, from their supersedeas 

bond, the amounts awarded against those appellants and affirmed by this court. We 

additionally render judgment against Jerry’s GM, LLC for the costs taxed against 

those three appellants in this court.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned Jose Acevedo, Treasurer of Lotus Capital Corp. hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lotus Capital Corp. for the period
ended March 31, 2005 (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 Lotus Capital
Corp.


Dated: May 18, 2005

/s/ Jose Acevedo
----------------
Jose Acevedo
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                              1,129,700
<SECURITIES>                        38,648     <F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                       69,122
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              13,116,750 <F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      14,384,427
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             10,428,984 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            0          <F4>
<OTHER-SE>                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        0
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1,158,578  <F5>
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       449,010    <F6>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (13,581)   <F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  448,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        247,931
<EPS-BASIC>                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0
<FN>
<F1>   "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F3>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F4>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS' CAPITAL
<F5>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F6>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
EXPENSE
<F7>   "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS EQUITY AND MINORITY INTEREST
IN JOINT VENTURES' NET INCOME/LOSS
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Earnings per share ("EPS") is calculated on a Basic EPS and Diluted EPS basis.
Basic EPS excludes dilution and is computed by dividing income available to
common shareholders (the numerator) by the weighted-average number of common
shares outstanding (the denominator) during the period. Income available to
common shareholders is Net Income in the table below and as reported in
Bancorp's income statement. No adjustments were required to net income for any
EPS calculations.

Diluted EPS is calculated by adjusting the denominator for all dilutive
potential common shares that were outstanding during the period. Bancorp had
stock options outstanding during the periods presented below which had a
dilutive effect on EPS. Therefore, the number of additional common shares that
would have been outstanding if the options had been exercised is added to the
denominator to arrive at the dilutive number of shares.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)             For the Three Months Ended March 31,
                                   ------------------------------------
                                             1999        1998
                                         -----------  ----------
<S>                                  <C>            <C>
Net income                               $    4,180   $    4,189
                                         -----------  ----------
                                         -----------  ----------
Basic EPS
     Shares                               8,714,829    8,639,374
     EPS                                 $     0.48   $     0.48

Dilutive shares
     Stock options                           62,072      106,620
     EPS                                         --           --

Diluted EPS
     Shares including options             8,776,901    8,745,994

     EPS                                 $     0.48   $     0.48

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 76

 69

 72

 81

 96

 83

 80

 72

 74

 91

 91

 86

 96

 79

 96

 80

 84

 78

 101

 76

 76

 71

 67

 67

 64

 63

 69

 84

 74

 68

 65

 65

 65

 69

 71

 70

 70

 70

 69

 69

 72

 78

 77

 75

 75

 75

 75

 75

 77

 67

 65

 65

 63

 62

 62

 59

 62

 67

 64

 65

 67

 66

 68

 73

 75

 72

 72

 71

 71

 73

 75

 79

 79

 77

 78

 77

 76

 76

 80

 71

 66

 67

 65

 63

 63

 62

 64

 69

 69

 66

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 29, 2009

HIGH LOW MEAN

 65.8

 65.6

 66.0

 67.4

 65.7

 67.1

 67.8

 68.8

 68.4

 68.3

 69.5

 70.0

 69.9

 70.9

 69.2

 70.7

 72.2

 74.7

 75.8

 71.9

 67.0

 67.6

 66.6

 65.9

 65.5

 64.9

 67.1

 70.1

 70.8

 70.0

 63.3

 62.7

 62.9

 63.4

 64.2

 62.8

 63.2

 64.7

 64.6

 64.8

 64.7

 65.9

 66.8

 66.2

 66.9

 65.7

 66.9

 68.4

 70.9

 67.3

 63.2

 63.8

 63.9

 61.8

 62.0

 61.6

 62.2

 66.3

 67.3

 66.4

 64.7

 64.2

 64.3

 65.3

 65.0

 64.8

 65.4

 66.6

 66.5

 66.5

 66.8

 67.7

 68.2

 68.3

 68.0

 68.2

 69.5

 71.3

 72.9

 69.4

 65.4

 65.7

 65.3

 63.9

 63.8

 63.4

 64.4

 67.9

 69.0

 68.3

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.7

 8.7

 8.7

 8.6

 8.5

 8.6

 8.7

 8.5

 8.5

 8.7

 8.6

 8.4

 8.3

 8.4

 8.3

 8.4

 8.3

 8.0

 8.3

 8.9

 9.4

 9.4

 9.3

 9.5

 9.5

 9.6

 9.5

 9.0

 9.0

 9.0

 8.2

 8.4

 8.3

 8.2

 8.0

 8.1

 7.9

 7.9

 8.0

 7.9

 8.1

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 8.0

 7.8

 7.0

 7.3

 8.0

 8.7

 8.9

 8.9

 9.1

 9.2

 9.3

 8.8

 8.6

 8.5

 8.0

 8.5

 8.6

 8.5

 8.4

 8.2

 8.4

 8.4

 8.2

 8.2

 8.3

 8.4

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.0

 7.8

 7.7

 8.5

 9.1

 9.2

 9.1

 9.4

 9.4

 9.4

 9.3

 8.8

 8.7

 8.7

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTINEANN D. SMOLINSKI, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-582 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed December 17, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Catherine Combee, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

KELLY, Judge.

Christineann D. Smolinski appeals the sentence imposed upon h er following the revocation of her probation. We affirm her sente nce but remand for entry of a written order of revocation of probation.- 2 - While her appeal was pending, Ms. Smolinski filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 (b) due to the lack of a

written order of revocation. The trial court denied the motion stating that "[a]n Order of Community Control was entered by this Court on January 17, 2014 ." Although the Order of Community Control reflects the conditions of probation Ms. Smolinski was found to have violated, this court has concluded that failure t o enter a separate written order of revocation of probation is error. See Kiburis v. Stat e, 18 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Moschiano v. State, 12 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; Dawkins v. State, 936 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We therefore remand this ca se for entry of a proper written revocation order. See Kiburis, 18 So. 3d at 125 4. Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 98-11444 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANK JIMINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:88-CR-263-T

- - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frank Jiminez appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release for violating two supervised-release conditions. Jiminez argues that his procedural due process rights were violated because the district court revoked his term of supervised release based solely on his counsel’s statement that Jiminez intended to plead true to the allegations against him, rather than obtaining a personal admission of guilt fromNo. 98-11444 -2- Jiminez. Because Jiminez failed to object to this alleged error, we review this issue for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Jiminez has failed to show any error at all, let alone that the alleged error by the district court affected his substantial rights. He cannot show plain error. See United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 408.932 Will you receive notice of our intention to apply cross-program recovery? Before we collect an overpayment from you using cross-program recovery, we will send you a written notice that tells you the following information: ( a ) We have determined that you owe a specific overpayment balance that can be collected by cross-program recovery;
( b ) We will withhold a specific amount from the title II or title XVI benefits (see § 408.931(b));
( c ) You may ask us to review this determination that you still owe this overpayment balance;
( d ) You may request that we withhold a different amount from your current monthly benefits (the notice will not include this information if § 408.931(d) applies); and
( e ) You may ask us to waive collection of this overpayment balance.
[70 FR 16, Jan. 3, 2005]