alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Operating Leases, Commitments and Contingencies, and Guarantees (Tables)**   | 12 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Operating Leases, Commitments and Contingencies, and Guarantees [Abstract]** |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| Future minimum lease payments and sublease receipts                            | Future Minimum Lease Payments and Sublease Receipts(In millions)Future Minimum Lease Payments Future Minimum Sublease Receipts2012$37 $2201337 2201431 —201524 —201621 —Thereafter72 —Total$222 $4 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Future Minimum Lease Payments and Sublease Receipts [Table Text Block]
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_FutureMinimumLeasePaymentsAndSubleaseReceiptsTableTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**cna_OperatingLeasesCommitmentsAndContingenciesAndGuaranteesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
* 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. 00-40196

Summary Calendar

 

THOMAS V. MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF

VAN ALSTYNE, TEXAS;

ROBERT H. HYNDS, Trustee;

HYNDS & GORDON LAW FIRM, 

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CV-257

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

April 2, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas V. Miller argues that the district court erred in

granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted because his claims that the

defendants defrauded him of his property have not been fully

litigated in any forum. Miller argues that he was entitled to have

a jury trial on the factual issues raised in his complaint.
No. 00-40196

-2-

Miller failed to carry his burden of establishing a basis for

the district court to exercise its federal subject matter

jurisdiction. See Stockman v. FEC, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir.

1998). His complaint reflected that the parties were not diverse,

and it failed to raise a federal question issue. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332, 1343. Therefore, the district court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction over the case. 

Miller’s appeal failed to raise an issue of arguable merit,

and, accordingly, is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2;

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

Miller’s four motions for order to investigate theft by Van

Alstyne Police & Texas Ranger and his motion to reopen the judgment

are DENIED.

The appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees and double costs

under Fed. R. App. P. 38 is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to

the district court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s

fees incurred on appeal. The appellees should submit a bill of

costs to the Clerk of this court. 

The court warns Miller that additional frivolous suits or

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite further

sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS IMPOSED.
### §13551. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–182, title III, §301, Aug. 6, 1996, 110 Stat. 1683

Section, Pub. L. 102–486, title XXX, §3013, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3128, related to geothermal heat pumps.
### Part II—Programs To Promote Elder Justice
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


I,  William  H.  Ham,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  of  Spectrum  Sciences  & Software Holdings Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly  period  ended  March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934 and that
information  contained  in  such  Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents in all material
respects  the financial condition and results of operations of Spectrum Sciences
&  Software  Holdings  Corp.

                                                      Dated:  May  24,  2004

                                                      /s/ William  H.  Ham
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Name: William H. Ham
                                                      Title: President and Chief
                                                             Executive Officer


                                       32
<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40695

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTONIO JOSUE LOPEZ-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-513-1

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Josue Lopez-Perez has 

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

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Lopez-Perez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lopez-Perez’s claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim

* 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

March 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40695 Document: 00515365525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2020
No. 19-40695

2

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Perez’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the 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. To the extent that Lopez-Perez moves for the appointment of 

substitute counsel, the motion is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 

158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 19-40695 Document: 00515365525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2020
### §12682. Actions under national service laws to be subject to availability of appropriations

No action involving the obligation or expenditure of funds may be taken under one of the national service laws (as defined in section 12511(15) 1 of this title) unless and until the Corporation for National and Community Service has sufficient appropriations available at the time such action is taken to satisfy the obligation to be incurred or make the expenditure to be made.

(Pub. L. 103–82, title II, §205, Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 897.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 12511(15) of this title, referred to in text, was redesignated section 12511(26) by Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1102(b)(1), Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1467.

#### Codification

Section enacted as part of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, and not as part of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 831.2006 Designation of agent by next of kin.

When a deceased employee, Member, or annuitant has not named a beneficiary and one of the next of kin entitled makes a claim for lump-sum benefit, other next of kin entitled to share in the lump-sum benefit may designate the one who made the claim to act as their agent to receive their distributive shares.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of EMPS Research Corporation,
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Timur Kunayev, Principal Executive Officer and James Gunnell, Principal
Financial 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: August 11, 2004                                  /s/ Timur Kunayev
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Timur Kunayev,
                                                     Principal Executive Officer



Date: August 11, 2004                                  /s/ James Gunnell
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     James Gunnell,
                                                     Principal Financial Officer
#### Sholiem Jollowsky, Respondent, v. George L. Shaw, Appellant.

Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 608; 280 App. Div. 895.]
* 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. 01-50298 c/w No. 01-50306

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TEOFILIO BARCENAS-ANGELINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-00-CR-583-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Teofilio Barcenas-Angelina appeals from his sentence

following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United

States following deportation. He argues that the district court

failed to verify that he had reviewed the PSR and discussed the

PSR with defense counsel, as required by FED. R. CRIM. P.

32(c)(3)(A). The record supports his argument.

Barcenas-Angelina also argues that an FED. R. CRIM. P.

32(c)(3)(A) error requires an automatic remand for resentencing. 

An identical argument was recently rejected by this court. See
No. 01-50298 c/w No. 01-50306

-2-

United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir.

2001). Because Barcenas-Angelina did not object to the FED. R.

CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A) error during sentencing and has failed to

allege that he was prejudiced by such error, he has not

demonstrated plain error. Id. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3655 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide additional exemptions 

from the internal control auditing requirements for smaller and newer 

public companies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2011 

Mr. ROYCE (for himself, Mr. CANSECO, Mr. JONES, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HENSARLING, and Mrs. BACHMANN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to provide additional exemptions from the internal control auditing requirements for smaller and newer public companies. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Access 

5 to Capital Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3655 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM AUDIT REQUIREMENT FOR 

2 SMALLER ISSUERS. 

3 Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is 

4 amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(c) EXEMPTION FOR SMALLER ISSUERS.—Sub7 section (b) shall not apply with respect to any report re8 quired under subsection (a) of an issuer that has a total 

9 public float for the relevant reporting period of less than 

10 $1,000,000,000. 

11 ‘‘(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the ex12 emptions provided for in subsection (c) shall be construed 

13 to relieve or exempt any issuer from the requirements for 

14 internal control reporting and assessment under sub15 section (a) or the requirement that officers of the issuer 

16 certify each annual and quarterly report pursuant to sec17 tion 302.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### Part C—Enforcement
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00732**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 00732\00732_Checklist_102510_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00732\00732_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 00732\00732_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00732\00732_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00732\00732_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00732\Certification Statement_00732.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 00732\Supporting Documentation\00732_Map 1-4 Mulberry.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00732\Supporting Documentation\Mulberry Water balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
EXHIBIT
10.50





March 26,
2010





Dr.
Gerald Burnett


202
Camino Al Lago


Atherton,
CA 94027








Avistar
Communications Corporation


1875
South Grant Street, 10th
Floor


San
Mateo, CA 94112








To Whom
It May Concern:





If
needed, I, Dr. Gerald Burnett, will fund Avistar Communications Corporation
(“Avistar”) thru March 31, 2011, with the same mechanism and terms that
currently secures Avistar’s existing $5.0 million revolving line of credit that
terminates on December 21, 2010, up to a total dollar amount of $7.0
million.











/s/ Gerald J.
Burnett


Dr.
Gerald Burnett
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1212

SEKOUBA FATY , Petitioner ,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : October 31, 2018 Decided: November 6, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation , UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT O F JUSTICE, Washington, D

. C

. , for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sekouba Faty, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen. We
have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of
discretion

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2018). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Bo ard

. See In re Faty (B.I.A. Jan. 29 , 201 8 )

. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and, therefore, dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See Lawrence v. Lynch , 826 F.3d 198, 206

- 07 (4 th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400

- 01 (4th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the de cisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

SEP 26 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITES STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAROLD GLEN CLAYTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 01-7093

(D.C. No. 01-CV-106-P, 98-CR-25-1)

(E.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

submitted without oral argument.

Appellant’s Apprendi claims are barred under United States v. Mora, 293

F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2002) and procedural bar. Appellant’s ineffective assistance
- 2 -

of counsel claims were properly denied because of procedural bar, failure to show

either actual conflict of interest or prejudice, and because the claims are

conclusory and not supported in the record.

We have examined all of the claims raised by Appellant on appeal and find

that none of them have merit.

Accordingly, the district court order denying petitioner’s petition for relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
[Civil No. 291.

Filed September 2, 1890.]

[32 Pac. 266.]

#### A. B. KOONS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE ARIZONA MINING COMPANY and THE PHŒNIX MINING COMPANY, Defendants and Appellees.

1. Appeal and Error—Bill op Exceptions—Mcstion por New Trial •— Assignments op Error—Putnam v. Putnam, ante, p. 182, 24 Pao. 320, Followed—Fundamental Error.—'Where there are no errors assigned other than such as might have been good cause for a new trial and no bill of exceptions was preserved to the ruling of the court upon motion for a new trial, this court cannot consider the errors assigned. *Putnam,*v. *Putnam, supra,*followed. No errors appearing on the face of the record the judgment will be affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. William W. Porter, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Edwards & Buck, for Appellants.

L. H. Chalmers, and Baker & Campbell, for Appellees.

*205PER CURIAM.

Upon the authority of *Putnam*v. *Putnam, ante,*p. 182, 24 Pac. 320, we cannot consider the errors assigned by appellants in this case, as no bill of exceptions was preserved to the ruling of the court upon the motion for a new trial.

There is nothing but the minute entries of the clerk in this transcript showing that the motion was ever made or acted upon by the court. All the errors assigned might have been good cause for a new trial, and should have been urged in the court below in their motion, and if an adverse ruling was made, this ruling excepted to and presented to us by a proper bill of exceptions.

As no error appears upon the face of the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.
### Part F—Fossil Energy
### SUBCHAPTER IV–A—ABANDONED INFANTS ASSISTANCE

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was comprised generally of Pub. L. 100–505, Oct. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 2533, and was formerly set out as a note under section 670 of this title prior to its transfer to this subchapter and subsequent repeal by Pub. L. 115–271.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annaul Report of NANNACO, Inc., a Texas corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steve Careaga, Principal
Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that
to his knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Steve Careaga
-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Executive Officer
January 28, 2005


/s/ Steve Careaga
-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Financial Officer
January 28, 2005


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to NANNACO, Inc. and will be retained by Nannaco, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]


                                      E-3
### Part B—Federal Energy Management