alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 91.430 Monitoring.

The consolidated plan must describe the standards and procedures that the consortium will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including minority business outreach and the comprehensive planning requirements.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0117)

[60 FR 1896, Jan. 5, 1995; 60 FR 4861, Jan. 25, 1995]
### §4104. Definition

As used in this chapter, the term "Federal electronic information" means Federal public information stored electronically.

(Added Pub. L. 103–40, §2(a), June 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 113.)
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40159

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SALVADOR MTANOUS, also known as Chavo,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CR-13-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Salvador Mtanous appeals his sentence following a guilty

plea to using a communications facility to facilitate the

distribution of a controlled substance. Mtanous argues that the

district court should not have considered information Mtanous

provided pursuant to his plea agreement and that the court

clearly erred in determining the quantity of drugs involved in

the offense and in finding that Mtanous was an organizer or
No. 96-40159

- 2 -

leader of a criminal activity involving more than five

participants. Nothing in Mtanous’s plea agreement can be

construed to prohibit the district court from sentencing Mtanous

based on information obtained during his debriefing by Government

agents. The district court’s determination of the relevant

quantity of drugs and its finding that Mtanous had an aggravating

role in the offense are not clearly erroneous. See United States

v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 345 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 1198 (1994); United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 550 (5th

Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1048 (1994). 

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOSEPH MARVELLI,

Petitioner

v.

US FOODS, INC. (WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD),

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 334 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Arthur Howell Knox, appellant, v. Adolph D. Weinthrop, appellee.

Gen. No. 28,531.

Suit by architect for breach of contract for services. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Laurence B. Jacobs, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 27, 1923.

A. S. and E. W. Froehlieh, for appellant. Levinson and Hoffman, for appellee; Harry C. Levinson and W. H. Gallagher, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
* 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

February 5, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40789

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO DEL BOSQUE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-02-CR-842-1)

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Alejandro Del Bosque appeals his

conviction on his guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent

to distribute approximately two kilograms of cocaine. The district

court sentenced Del Bosque to sixty months imprisonment and four

years supervised release. 

Del Bosque asserts that the district court’s failure to inform

him at FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 colloquy that he was subject to a

statutory minimum sentence was plain error that affected his
2

substantial rights. He argues that we should vacate his plea

because the error is of constitutional magnitude and rendered his

plea invalid.

Del Bosque’s Rule 11 challenge is raised for the first time on

appeal and is subject to review for plain error only. United

States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Accordingly, he must show:

(1) an error, (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects

his substantial rights. United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558

(5th Cir. 2002). Even if these factors are established, however,

we will not correct the forfeited error unless, in our discretion,

we conclude that “the error seriously affects the fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. 

Rule 11(b)(1)(I), FED. R. CRIM. P., requires the district court

to advise a defendant of the mandatory minimum penalty provided by

law. We have held previously that an omission during the FED. R.

CRIM. P. 11 colloquy of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence

may constitute reversible error. See United States v. Still, 102

F.3d 118, 122 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Watch, 7 F.3d 422,

429 (5th Cir. 1993). Such an omission does not, however, require

automatic reversal. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 1 F.3d

296, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). The determination is a fact

sensitive inquiry. See Johnson, 1 F.3d at 303 n.31. 

Under the circumstances presented in the instant case, the

district court’s omission does not warrant reversal. Del Bosque

has not shown that the error “seriously affects the fairness,
3

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Reyes,

300 F.3d at 558. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard V. Secord, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of
Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. ("CTI");

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

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

         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 small business issuer,
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) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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; and

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

         (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 small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

October 17, 2005

/s/ Richard V. Secord
-------------------------
Richard V. Secord
Acting Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Residential Funding, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, and all reports
on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Certificates for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

      4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed
in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent registered public accounting firm, after conducting a
review in compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement, that
is included in these reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.,
as Servicer, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, Bank of America, N.A.,
as Servicer, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., as Servicer.

Date: December 5, 2005

/s/ Harold F. Zagunis
--------------------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
§ 51.100 Purpose and authority. ( a ) It is the purpose of this subpart B to: ( 1 ) Call attention to the threat of noise pollution;
( 2 ) Encourage the control of noise at its source in cooperation with other Federal departments and agencies;
( 3 ) Encourage land use patterns for housing and other noise sensitive urban needs that will provide a suitable separation between them and major noise sources;
( 4 ) Generally prohibit HUD support for new construction of noise sensitive uses on sites having unacceptable noise exposure;
( 5 ) Provide policy on the use of structural and other noise attenuation measures where needed; and
( 6 ) Provide policy to guide implementation of various HUD programs.
( b ) *Authority.* Specific authorities for noise abatement and control are contained in the Noise Control Act of 1972, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4901 *et seq.*); and the General Services Administration, Federal Management Circular 75-2; *Compatible Land Uses at Federal Airfields.*
[44 FR 40861, July 12, 1979, as amended at 61 FR 13333, Mar. 26, 1996]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of INTREorg Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas E. Lindholm, Interim President and Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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, as amended, and 

 

2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

September 28, 2018

 

*/s/Thomas E. Lindholm*

Thomas E. Lindholm, 

Interim President and Chief Executive Officer,

Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Sturtevant *v.*Robinson *et al.*

September 27, 1912.

Appeal. Before Judge Charlton. Chatham superior court. March 25, 1911.

*Edward S. Elliott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Saussy & Baussy,*contra.

Per Curiam.

1. This case is controlled by. *Hood*v. *Perry,*73 *Ga.*319, and *Byrom*v. *Gunn,*102 *Ga.*565 (31 S. E. 560). The decisions in those cases on the point involved in the present case were not obiter dicta and are binding until overruled or modified in the manner pointed out in the statute. Civil Code, § 6207.

2. As those decisions have stood for many years, as to the appointment of married women as guardians, without reference to what might have been held as an original proposition, enough members of the court are not in favor of overruling them to accomplish that result, and they must stand.

3. While the reasoning in *Wood*v. *Wilson,*127 *Ga.*316 (56 S. E. 457), is not in harmony with what was said in *Hood*v. *Perry,*and *Byrom*v. *Gunn,*supra, the first-mentioned case dealt with the question of administration and not of guardianship, and in it the two last-mentioned decisions were not formally overruled, and stand unreversed on the question of guardianship.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### § 8.20 General requirement concerning program accessibility.

Except as otherwise provided in §§ 8.21(c)(1), 8.24(a), 8.25, and 8.31, no qualified individual with handicaps shall, because a recipient's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with handicaps, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance.
### §421d. Effect on existing laws

Except as otherwise provided in sections 421a to 421h of this title, the provisions of the Federal reclamation laws, and Acts amendatory thereto, are continued in full force and effect.

(July 4, 1955, ch. 271, §4, 69 Stat. 245; Pub. L. 92–487, Oct. 13, 1972, 86 Stat. 805.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1972—Pub. L. 92–487 reenacted section without change.
#### In the Matter of Marc A. Bennett v. Anna M. Kross, as Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the City of New York.

Motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ. 12 The People of the State of New York v. Hezekiel Moore.
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries and Variable Interest Entities of

Hurray! Holding Co., Ltd.



|                                                            |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Hurray! Times Communications (Beijing) Ltd.                 |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|                                                            | 
|Name of Variable Interest Entity                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Hurray! Solutions Ltd.                                      |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Cool Young Information Technology Co., Ltd.         |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Enterprise Network Technology Co., Ltd.             |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing WVAS Solutions Ltd.                                 |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Palmsky Technology Co., Ltd.                        |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Hutong Wuxian Technology Co., Ltd.                  |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Shanghai Magma Digital Technology Co., Ltd.                 |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Hengji Weiye Electronic Commerce Co., Ltd.          |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Hurray! Digital Music Technology Co., Ltd.                  |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Huayi Brothers Music                                        |  | Peoples Republic of China   
|Beijing Hurray! Freeland Digital Music Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 E0 00 8 . I N THE I NTEREST OF L. R. et a l ., CHI LDREN.

Th e Veri fi ed Em erg en cy M o t io n fi l ed b y Pat ri ck Ro et h er an d Ho l l i e Ro et h er

o n Oct o b er 1 7 , 2 0 1 9 , i s h ereb y DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## October 17, 2019

10/17/2019
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.C. FISCHER AND COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES CARTWRIGHT,

Defendant. /

No. C-09-02316 EDL

ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

The Court held a Further Case Management Conference on March 23, 2010. As stated at the

conference, the Court orders as follows:

1. Any motion to dismiss shall be filed no later than June 8, 2010 to be set for hearing on July

13, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. 

2. Although the date for amendment of the pleadings has passed, the Court gives Plaintiff leave

to amend the complaint to dismiss the vessel. 

3. If the parties seek to continue any pretrial or trial dates, they shall meet and confer and file a

stipulation that takes into account the Court’s requirements regarding the timing of pretrial

deadlines as discussed at the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02316-EDL Document 37 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Leading Edge Packaging, Inc. 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>                        MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           295
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    871
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,465
<PP&E>                                         2,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                   308
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,425
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,750
<COMMON>                                          56
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,703)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,553
<SALES>                                        2,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                          1,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (690)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (690)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (690)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.13)



</TABLE>