alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH C IRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 12544 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr
- 00445

- AKK

- RRA

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

versus

CORRY AVERETT , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________ (July 25, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge , WILSON and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-12544 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Charles Scott Linton , appointed co unsel for Corry Averett , has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. State of California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the
rel ative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion is GRANTED , and Averett’s c onviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12544 Date Filed: 07/25/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.735-13 Disciplinary and other remedial action. ( a ) Knowing participation in a violation of this subpart by persons not within the scope of the foregoing rules in this subpart shall likewise be deemed improper conduct and in contravention of Commission rules. Departure from any of the rules in this subpart by employees or special Government employees without specific approval may be cause for appropriate remedial and/or disciplinary action or, in the case of former members, employees, and special Government employees, for disqualification from appearing and practicing before the Commission, which may be in addition to any penalty prescribed by law.
( b ) When there has been a departure from any of the rules of this subpart without specific approval or when a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest on the part of an employee or special Government employee arises, the Director of Personnel may order immediate action to end such conflict or appearance of conflict of interest. Remedial action may include, but is not limited to ( 1 ) changes in assigned duties;
( 2 ) divestment by the employee or special Government employee of his conflicting interest;
( 3 ) disciplinary action; or
( 4 ) disqualification for a particular assignment. Remedial action, whether disciplinary or otherwise, shall be effected in accordance with any applicable laws, Executive Orders, and regulations. The Director of Personnel may refer any recommended action to the Commission. The employee may obtain review by the Commission of any action ordered to be taken by the Director of Personnel. During the period of review, unless otherwise directed by the Commission, the action ordered by the Director of Personnel is stayed.
( c ) Former members or employees who violate the post-employment restriction provisions of 18 U.S.C. 207(a), (b) or (c), which parallel the provisions of Rule 8(a), *supra,* will be subject to an administrative enforcement proceeding as set forth in Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, § 201.102(e) of this chapter, except that, when proceedings are brought to determine if violations of post-employment restrictions have occurred, denial of the privilege of appearing and practicing before the Commission will be based on a finding of violation of the provisions of Rule 8(a) and 18 U.S.C. 207 (a), (b) and (c). Procedures applicable to such administrative proceedings are to be found in the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 201.100 *et seq.*
[45 FR 36064, May 29, 1980, as amended at 60 FR 32795, June 23, 1995]
### §1973aa–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973aa–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10506 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### James P. Stanley et al., Respondents, v. Richard Burnside, Appellant.

Motion for reargument referred to the court that rendered the decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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 PetCARE Television Network, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Philip M. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Philip M. Cohen
-------------------
Philip M. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Package: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System (CAC No. L25069).

Accession Number: ML16319A064

Date Released: Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16319A068 - Letter to W. Fowler re: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System (CAC No. L25069). (3 page(s), 11/30/2016)
    - ML16319A072 - Enclosure 1: CoC No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 [Letter to W. Fowler re: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System (CAC No. L25069). (3 page(s), 11/30/2016)
    - ML16319A085 - Appendix A: Technical Specifications and Design Features for the MAGNASTOR System, Amendment No. 6 [Letter to W. Fowler re: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System]. (49 page(s), 11/30/2016)
    - ML16319A088 - Appendix B: Approved Contents for the MAGNASTOR System, Amendment 6 [Letter to W. Fowler re: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System] (148 page(s), 11/30/2016)
    - ML16319A090 - Enclosure 2: Safety Evaluation Report [Letter to W. Fowler re: Issuance of Certificate of Compliance No. 1031, Amendment No. 6 for the MAGNASTOR Cask System (CAC No. L25069)]. (3 page(s), 11/30/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
*Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have no precedential value

and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule,

the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-20798

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUMALDO SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-272-14)

November 15, 1995

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rumaldo Solis appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to revoke the order of

detention entered by the magistrate judge based on a finding that Solis posed a seriousflight

risk. Persuaded that the record amply supports the findings of the courts a quo, we affirm.

Solis stands indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilos of

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Solis, an employee for 14 years of the

United States Immigration Service, assigned for the past eight years as an inspector at the
 

1United States v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1336

(1993) (involving a district court’s revocation of detention order); United States v. Hare,

873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) (involving a denial of a motion to revoke under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3145(b)).

 

2United States v. Fortna, 769 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1985).

 

3United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir. 1987); Reuben.

2

Hidalgo Port of Entry, is accused, inter alia of using his position to aid and warn individuals

involved in a major drug-trafficking conspiracy allegedly responsible for importing huge

amounts of marihuana and cocaine from Mexico. The government provided evidence of

substantial unexplained wealth, in certificates of deposit, cash, and real estate, exceeding

$200,000, and of business and family contacts in Mexico, including persons allegedly

associated with a Mexican drug-trafficker who is on the FBI’s top-ten-most-wanted list.

The findings by the magistrate judge ordering detention and the magistrate judge

conducting a hearing on a motion to reopen, and the implicit findings by the district court in

denying the motion to revoke detention, indicate that Solis presents a serious risk of flight

and that no condition or combination of conditionsreasonably would assure his appearance

for trial.

We review the appealed ruling, absent an error of law, under an abuse of discretion

standard.1 We perceive no error of law in the detention order,2 nor do we find any factual

finding subject to reversal or abuse of discretion in the application of controlling principles

of law.3

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABEL ARCIGA-LORENZANO; BRIAN

ARCIGA-ZARATE,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70922

Agency Nos. A075-476-280

A075-476-282

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Abel Arciga-Lorenzano and Brian Arciga-Zarate, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

FILED

MAY 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We

deny the petition for review.

As the government concedes, Arciga-Lorenzano’s departure from the United

States did not deprive the BIA of jurisdiction to consider his motion to reopen. See

Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2011).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely petitioners’

motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioners

filed their motion eight years after their order of deportation became

administratively final, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),

and failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling

of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 680-81 (finding no due diligence

by a petitioner who “had reason to suspect” that her former attorneys had not

adequately prepared her case but who nevertheless “took no affirmative steps to

investigate” their errors after the BIA had denied her appeal).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 13-70922
Subpart 546.3 - Contract Clauses

Parent topic: Part 546 - Quality Assurance

546.302 Fixed-price supply contracts.

546.302-70 Source inspection by Quality Approved Manufacturer for fixedprice supply contracts.

(a)Insert the clause at 552.246-70, Source Inspection by Quality Approved Manufacturer:

(1)In FAS solicitations and contracts that—

(i)Will exceed the simplified acquisition threshold;

(ii)Include the FAR clause at 52.246-2; and

(iii)Provide for source inspection for the Stock and Special Order Programs.

(2)In solicitations and contracts that—

(i)Are below the simplified acquisition threshold;

(ii) Include the FAR clause at 52.246-2; and

(iii) Support the Wildfire program; or

(iv) When a pattern of acquisitions demonstrates an ongoing relationship with the contractor.

(b) The contracting officer may authorize inspection and testing at manufacturing plants or other

facilities located outside the United States, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands according to

paragraph (a)(1) of the clause at 552.246-70 when any of the following conditions apply and after

coordinating the authorization with QVOC and documenting the authorization in the file:

(1) Inspection services are available from another Federal agency with primary inspection

responsibility in the geographic area.

(2) An inspection interchange agreement exists with another agency for inspection at a contractor's

plant.

(3) Other considerations will ensure more economical and effective inspection consistent with the

Government's interest.

546.302-71 Source inspection.

Insert the clause at 552.246-71, Source Inspection by Government, in FAS solicitations and contracts

where Government personnel at the source will perform inspection.
546.302-72 Destination Inspection.

Insert the clause at 552.246-78, Inspection at Destination, in solicitations and contracts for supplies

that require inspection at destination.

546.312 Construction contracts.

Insert the clause at 552.246-72, Final Inspection and Tests, in solicitations and contracts for

construction that include the FAR clause at 52.246-12.
#### In the Matter of the Application for an Allowance to Reva A. Steiner, an Infant, out of the Income of a Fund Created in and by the Last Will and Testament of Samuel Steiner, Deceased. The Fidelity Trust Company, Appellant; E. Mattie Steiner, as General Guardian, Respondent.

Decree modified so as to provide that the income on the legacies given by the 8th clause of the will does not belong to the legatees, but forms a part of the residuary estate, and as so modified the decree is affirmed, with costs to" each of the parties appearing upon this appeal by separate attorneys payable out of the fund. All concurred.
### §2364. Community employment and population

The indemnity obligation specified in section 2363 of this title shall arise only if, for the six months just preceding the date on which it is invoked—

(a) the total number of operating, maintenance, and administrative employees in the project area, as determined by the Commission, has been less than fourteen thousand three hundred and thirty-seven in the case of Oak Ridge or seven thousand six hundred and twenty-two in the case of Richland or four thousand six hundred and twenty in the case of Los Alamos; and

(b) the population in the community has been less than twenty-nine thousand two hundred and fifty in the case of Oak Ridge or twenty-five thousand two hundred in the case of Richland or eleven thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine in the case of Los Alamos.

For purposes of this section employment shall be determined on the basis of the pay period or periods ending nearest the 15th of each month.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 6, §64, 69 Stat. 479; Pub. L. 87–719, §§18, 19, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 666.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–719, §18, inserted "or four thousand six hundred and twenty in the case of Los Alamos" after "Richland".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 87–719, §19, inserted "or eleven thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine in the case of Los Alamos" after "Richland".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Timothy Fairbanks, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NationsHealth, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005By:   /s/ Timothy Fairbanks Timothy Fairbanks
#### Burch v. Whaley, Warden.

May 9, 1950.

Oldham Clarke, Special Judge.

Charlie C. H. Burch, pro se.

A. E. Punk, Attorney General, and W. Owen Keller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Judge Cammack

Affirming.

'This is an appeal from a judgment of the Oldham Circuit Court denying Charlie Burch a writ of habeas corpus.

Burch is now serving a life sentence upon a conviction on an indictment for murder in the Bell Circuit Court. In the case of Burch v. Whaley, 311 Ky. 53, 223 S. W. 2d 355, we dismissed Burch’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court because we have appellate jurisdiction only in such an action. Previous to that ruling the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kenucky dismissing Burch’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Burch v. Kieren, Warden, 174 F. 2d 324. The per curam opinion shows that this action was taken because “he has not exhausted the remedies provided for his relief *821by the laws of that State, and that no reversible error appears upon the record.” On June 20, 1949, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Burch v. Kieren, Warden, 337 U. S. 946, 69 S. Ct. 1503.

Insofar as we aré able to ascertain from the record, it appears that Burch was represented by competent counsel at his trial in Bell County, in 1945. He did not file a motion and grounds for a new trial, nor did he appeal to this Court. Furthermore, no application was ever made for a writ of coram nobis. However, that question is not before us at present. No error in the trial in the Bell Circuit Court has been brought to our attention which would indicate that the judgment of conviction was void. Therefore, the lower court properly denied the writ of habeas corpus. Sharpe v. Commonwealth, 292 Ky. 86, 165 S. W. 2d 993.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

<PAGE>

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Kelly Kendall, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Life USA, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures  as of a date  within  90  days  prior  to the  filing  date  of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)  presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our   conclusions   about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

     b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 23, 2004


/s/ Kelly Kendall
------------------------
 Kelly Kendall, CEO & CFO