alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50693

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODRIGO ANTONIO GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-359-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodrigo Antonio 

Gonzalez 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). Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

April 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50693 Document: 00514432336 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
No. 17-50693

2

issue for appellate review. 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.

 Case: 17-50693 Document: 00514432336 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                     
<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
                           
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    1,442
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            11,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                690
<INVENTORY>                              16,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         30,566
<PP&E>                                   16,351
<DEPRECIATION>                           10,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           41,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    22,724
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  2,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               16,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             41,532
<SALES>                                  17,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         17,915
<CGS>                                    14,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            14,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              93 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          93 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 93 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.02   
        



</TABLE>
#### THOMAS v. INTERNATIONAL SILVER CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Taxation oe Costs—Objection.

On appeal from an order denying a motion for retaxation of costs, the record must show what items were objected to, and the grounds of objection.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Clarence E. Thomas against the International Silver Company. From an order taxing costs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

I. B. Stewart, for appellant.

R. A. Irving, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

There is nothing in the record on this appeal to show what particular items of the bill of costs the defendant objected to when the bill was before the clerk of the court for taxation. The affidavit of the defendant’s attorney, made after the bill was taxed, indicates only that a general objection to the taxation of any *613costs was interposed. There is no statement of the grounds of objection. The record should show what items in the bill were objected to, and the grounds thereof, in respect to each item objected to. Lotti v. Krakaner, I Civ. Proc. R. 312; Comly v. Mayor, 1 Civ. Proc. R. 306, 317; Matthews v. Matthews (Sup.) 1 N. Y. Supp. 222.

The order denying defendant’s motion for relaxation of costs is affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.206 Jurisdictional determinations.

The determination as to whether the NDRB has jurisdiction in any case shall be predicated on the policy stated in § 724.205. Decisions shall be made by administrative action without referral to the NDRB. Normally, they shall be made by the Executive Secretary of the NDRB, or they may be referred to the President, NDRB.
EXHIBIT
32.1





Section
1350 Certification


By
Principal Executive Officer





I, Daniel
Greenberg, 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
on Form 10-Q of Electro Rent Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended
November 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC upon
request.





Date:  December
18, 2009





/s/
      Daniel GreenbergDaniel
      Greenberg
                Chief
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.5




RETIRED DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM AND


MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGREEMENT







Retired Director Compensation Program





Directors who have served on the Espey Board of Directors for several years bring unique knowledge and experience to Espey (“the Company’). For its future success and growth, and to provide continuity, Espey must attract the best candidates for its board of directors and must maintain access to its existing directors. In order to take advantage of the expertise and knowledge of retiring directors and in order to attract outstanding new directors for the Company, the board has instituted the Retired Director Compensation Program (“Program”).





Under the Program, after at least seven years of continuous service on the Espey Board of Directors, including service prior to the date of this Program, a director who ceases to serve as a director for any reason, except termination for cause or voluntary retirement prior to attaining age 76, may serve at his or her discretion, as a director emeritus. The term of a director emeritus, which shall not exceed four years, shall be calculated on the basis of one quarter of a year for each year of service as a board member and shall commence immediately upon the date s/he ceases to serve as a director. The director emeritus is required to attend 75% of the board meetings in a calendar year, in person or by phone. As compensation for his or her ongoing participation in board activities, the director continues to receive the base director fees paid at the point of his or her retirement from the board. The director is also eligible to participate in the Company’s insurance programs at the same cost that Espey offers its employees. The Program commences upon retirement from the board, and terminates at the earlier of the end of the term or the death of the director emeritus. The director emeritus shall not be entitled to vote.





An employee-director cannot receive payment under the Program. A non-employee director cannot receive compensation under the Program if s/he receives compensation at the same time under another Company compensation or severance contract or program.





Mandatory Retirement





Except as provided in the Retired Director Compensation Program, Directors are required to retire from the Espey Board of Directors at age 76 provided, however, that any director, who attains or has attained the age of 76 during his term as director, may delay retirement until completion of his or her term.





Approved & Amended 11/20/09
#### § 553.31 Memorial and commemorative monuments (other than private headstones or markers).

The placement of memorials or commemorative monuments in Arlington National Cemetery will be carried out in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 2409(b).
§ 776.22 Diligence. ( a ) A covered attorney shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, and shall consult with a client as soon as practicable and as often as necessary upon being assigned to the case or issue.
( b ) [Reserved]
JULIE OETTINGER

MANAGING DIRECTOR– INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(202) 296-2370 

(202) 296-2869 FAX

JULIE.OETTINGER@UNITED.COM

 

March 5, 2010 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division 

George Wellington, Chief 

Foreign Carrier Licensing Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Joint Application and Notice of United Air Lines, Inc. 

and Spanair, S.A. (Blanket Code Share)

 DOT-OST-2010- 0055, -2004-19148, -2003-16219

Dear Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Wellington: 

 This is to advise that United has completed its poll of U.S. carrier representatives 

in the attached service list for the above-referenced application, which was filed on 

March 2. No carrier had any objection to the approval of this application. A copy of this 

letter is today being filed with the Department's Docket Section. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Julie Oettinger 

Managing Director—International and 

 Regulatory Affairs 

cc: Service List 

 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on 

all persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email: 

byerlyjr@state.gov

carl.nelson@aa.com

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

hkamen@coair.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

jim.ballough@faa.gov

john.allen@faa.gov

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

mgoldman@sgbdc.com

Annalei Avanceña 

Advisor—Regulatory Affairs 

Dated: March 5, 2010
### subpart ii—adjustment of quotas and enforcement
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Typographical Errors in Federal Register Document EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700; FRL-9771-5, Approval and Promulgation oflmplementationPlans; Kentucky; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour OzoneNational Ambient Air Quality Standards FROM: Nacosta C.

## Ward~ Regulatory Development Section TO: File and Docket EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700 This memorandum is to document the following typographical errors in the Federal Register Document EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700; FRL-9771-5, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8- Hour OzoneNational Ambient Air Quality Standards, publishedJanuary 17,2013: Page: 3870 Column: 3 Paragraph: 2
Erroneous Text: "OnMay25,2012, the Commonwealth ofKentucky submitted its plan to EPA, which also included the Louisville-Jefferson Countylocal monitoringprogram. On June 29, 2012, EPA approved the Commonwealth's monitoring network plan." The correct text should read as follows: "OnJune 29, 2012, the Commonwealth ofKentucky submitted its plan to EPA, which also included the Louisville-Jefferson County local monitoringprogram. On October 11, 2012, EPA approved the Commonwealth's monitoring networkplan."
The October 11, 2012, monitoring network plan approval letter for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is includedinthe docket for this rulemaking. 

### It canbefound at www.regulations.gov using Document ID: EPA-R04-0AR-2012-0700-0005.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wrth Vegetable Or! Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mrnrmum 30% Postconsumer)
#### Seymour Horowitz, Respondent, v. B & S Caterers, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Harry Lazar, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff, who was a guest at a Bar Mitzvah party given by the third-party defendant and catered by the defendant and third-party plaintiff upon premises controlled by it, when plaintiff allegedly fell on the highly polished waxed floor upon which there was an accumulation of wax, the said defendant and third-party plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 23, 1962, which granted the third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint; and (2) from the judgment entered July 10, 1962 on said order, dismissing the third-party complaint. Order and judgment reversed, without costs, and motion denied. In our opinion, under all the circumstances presented by this record, triable issues of fact exist. We pass on no other questions raised by the parties on this appeal. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur. [35 Misc 2d 283.]
### §1429. Determinations of Secretary as final and conclusive

Determinations made by the Secretary under this Act shall be final and conclusive: Provided, That the scope and nature of such determinations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act [15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.].

(Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title IV, §412, 63 Stat. 1057.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, 63 Stat. 1051, known as the Agricultural Act of 1949, which is classified principally to this chapter (§1421 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1421 of this title and Tables.

The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, referred to in text, is act June 29, 1948, ch. 704, 62 Stat. 1070, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§714 et seq.) of chapter 15 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 714 of Title 15 and Tables.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTwo-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of the OLS/TAAT airfoilTwo flight tests have been conducted that obtained extension pressure data on a modified AH-1G rotor system. These two tests, the Operational Loads Survey (OLS) and the Tip Aerodynamics and Acoustics Test (TAAT) used the same rotor set. In the analysis of these data bases, accurate 2-D airfoil data is invaluable, for not only does it allow comparison studies between 2- and 3-D flow, but also provides accurate tables of the airfoil characteristics for use in comprehensive rotorcraft analysis codes. To provide this 2-D data base, a model of the OLS/TAAT airfoil was tested over a Reynolds number range from 3 x 10 to the 6th to 7 x 10 to the 7th and between Mach numbers of 0.34 to 0.88 in the NASA Langley Research Center's 6- by 28-Inch Transonic Tunnel. The 2-D airfoil data is presented as chordwise pressure coefficient plots, as well as lift, drag, and pitching moment coefficient plots and tables.Document ID19890004845Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWatts, Michael E.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Cross, Jeffrey L.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA., United States)*Noonan, Kevin W.*(Army Aviation Research and Development Command Hampton, VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1988Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberA-87132NAS 1.15:89435NASA-TM-89435Accession Number89N14216Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-51-61Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890004845.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 19, 2018

Order 

Clerk

October 19, 2018

158524(58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 158524

v COA: 337576

Oakland CC: 2016-260209-FC

ROBERT WAYNE PRUESNER,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

for filing his answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will 

be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before November 27, 2018.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000480 13-OCT-2014 09:49 AM

SCPW-14-0000480
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
JOE CROFFORD, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE SHERRI ANN L. IHA, District Family Court Judge, Family Court of the First Circuit, Respondent Judge,
and KRISTI ADACHI, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (FC-D NO. 13-1-7625)
ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) We have considered Petitioner Joe Crofford’s petition for a writ of prohibition, filed on February 25, 2014, the supplement to the petition, the response filed by Respondent Kristi Adachi, the respective supporting documents, and the record. Under the circumstances of this case, the family court’s issuance of the February 12, 2014 “Order Directing Seizure of Any and All Computers and Data Storage Devices in Plaintiff’s Possession or Control” ex parte and outside any formal discoveryrequest was a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, and, accordingly, a writ of prohibition is warranted. See Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao , 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition “is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction”). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. Respondent is directed to promptly deliver to Petitioner, through respective counsel, the computer and data storage devices removed from Petitioner’s possession and specifically identified on pages 2-3 of Exhibit “3” attached to the petition. The family court may take appropriate steps to preserve and protect the property and information. This order shall not be construed as determining the rightful ownership of the property in question. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 13, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, Chief Executive Officer of Erie Family Life Insurance Company, certify
that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company;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 registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    The registrant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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:  a.
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: April 27, 2005/s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. Ludrof, President & CEO 29
June 10, 1977.

M. P. No. 76-195.

#### Fireman's Fund Insurance Company *v.*Lola-Jane McAlpine, *Administratrix.*

*Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, John T. Walsh, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd., Francis J. Boyle, Joseph R. Palumbo, Jr.,*for defendant.

Plaintiff's motion for oral argument of this motion is denied.

The plaintiff’s motion to retain the record in this case until the case of *Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company*v. *Lola-Jane McAlpine,*No. 76-96-A. is heard and determined by this court, is denied.
#### STATE v. CATHEY

No. 406P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 395

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.