alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-11223 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. WILLIAM ALLEN TILLEY, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-49-1
Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant William Allen Tilley’s probation was revoked and he

was sentenced t o 6 0 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release and ordered to pay the $15,000 fine originally imposed. In his sole issue for appeal, he contends that there is a clerical err o r in the judgment of the offense of conviction that should be remanded for correction. The judgment for the offense of conviction states that Tilley was convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(D). U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 2 9, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-11223 Document: 00511709396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2011No. 10-11223

Tilley w a s c h a r ged with violating § 841(b)(1)(D), and § 841(a)(1)(D) does not exist. Cf. § 841. The case is remanded to the dis tri ct court for the limited purpose of correcting the original judgment to reflect that Tilley was convi c t e d a nd sentenced un d e r § 841(b)(1)(D) rather than § 841(a)(1)(D). See F E D
. R. C R I M
. P. 36. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

2 Case: 10-11223 Document: 00511709396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2011
### §2371. Plant variety protection fees

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, charge and collect reasonable fees for services performed under this chapter.

#### (b) Late payment penalty

On failure to pay such fees, the Secretary shall assess a late payment penalty. Such overdue fees shall accrue interest as required by section 3717 of title 31.

#### (c) Disposition of funds

Such fees, late payment penalties, and accrued interest collected shall be credited to the account that incurs the cost and shall remain available without fiscal year limitation to pay the expenses incurred by the Secretary in carrying out this chapter. Such funds collected (including late payment penalties and any interest earned) may be invested by the Secretary in insured or fully collateralized, interest-bearing accounts or, at the discretion of the Secretary, by the Secretary of the Treasury in United States Government debt instruments.

#### (d) Actions for nonpayment

The Attorney General may bring an action for the recovery of charges that have not been paid in accordance with this chapter against any person obligated for payment of such charges under this chapter in any United States district court or other United States court for any territory or possession in any jurisdiction in which the person is found, resides, or transacts business. The court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the action.

#### (e) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §31, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1545; Pub. L. 96–574, §10, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350; Pub. L. 100–203, title I, §1505, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–28.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–203 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The Secretary shall, under such regulations as he may prescribe, charge and collect reasonable fees for services performed under this chapter. Such fees shall be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter."

1980—Pub. L. 96–574 substituted provisions relating to deposit of fees and authorization of appropriations for provisions relating to recovering of fees, initial capital of the fund, and charging of fees.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2022-04-13T07:19:04-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §1913. Authority of Secretary of Agriculture under other provisions of law and to establish and consult with advisory committees

Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture under other provision of law or to establish or consult with advisory committees.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title I, §104, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 295.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 87–128, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 294, known as the Agricultural Act of 1961. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1911 of this title and Tables.
MEMORANDUM

 

TO: Steve Grewal

Director, Information Assurance Services 

FROM: Danny Harris, PhD 

Chief Information Officer 

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Request Closure/Certification 

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY 

In accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the Department of Education's

(ED’s) Handbook for the Post Audit Process and my responsibilities as Action Official for the

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) under the Department's ACS Directive 

OCFO-01, I hereby delegate to you the authority to serve as the Action Official in issuing the

Request for Closure/Certification Memorandum. This delegation of authority covers internal 

audits defined in this context as ED - Office of Inspector General (OIG), and Government 

Accountability Office (GAO)-issued audits, as well as alternative products issued by EDOIG, and tracked by the Department's automated tracking system.

II. RESERVATION 

None. 

III. REDELEGATION 

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE 

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department's Delegation Control

Officer.

 ______-s-________________ 

Danny Harris, 

Chief Information Officer 

Date certified: February 13, 2015 

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens 

Control Number: EI/EII/16
Order entered July 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00958-CR

No. 05-12-00959-CR

GREGORIO DIAZ LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-40834-K, F09-40835-K

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the June 27, 2013 request of the Dallas County District Clerk for an 

extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s records in these appeals. 

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, supplemental clerk’s records containing detailed itemizations of the costs 

assessed in the cases, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed 

attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost 

bills shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive 

payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s records include 
documents explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, 

Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                            THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                                    EXHIBIT 11
                                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                        1997               1996               1997               1996
                                                        ----               ----               ----               ----
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>                 <C>               <C>
Common shares outstanding beginning of period         7,854,985          7,775,129          7,757,329          7,735,745

Effect of Weighting Shares:
      Employee stock options exercised                   19,443              4,363             76,348             27,942
      Employee stock options outstanding                306,724               --              247,955               --
                                                     ----------        -----------         ----------        -----------

Primary                                               8,181,152          7,779,492          8,081,632          7,763,687
                                                     ==========        ===========         ==========        ===========

Common shares outstanding beginning of period         7,854,985          7,775,129          7,757,329          7,735,745

Effect of Weighting Shares:
      Employee stock options exercised                   19,443              4,363             76,349             27,942
      Employee stock options outstanding                306,983               --              277,462               --
                                                     ----------        -----------         ----------        -----------

Fully diluted                                         8,181,411          7,779,492          8,111,140          7,763,687
                                                     ==========        ===========         ==========        ===========

Net income (loss)                                    $1,528,000        $(5,478,000)        $3,357,000        $(4,586,000)
                                                     ==========        ===========         ==========        ===========


NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON
AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES:

Net income (loss) per share

      Primary                                        $     0.19        $     (0.70)        $     0.42        $     (0.59)
                                                     ==========        ===========         ==========        ===========
      Fully diluted                                  $     0.19        $     (0.70)        $     0.41        $     (0.59)
                                                     ==========        ===========         ==========        ===========
</TABLE>
#### HALLWOOD CASH REGISTER CO. v. FINNEGAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

I. Sale—Executory Contract — Stipulation—Consideration—Revocation.

Defendant ordered certain goods from plaintiff by a writing in which it was stipulated that the order should not be countermanded, but, before the order was accepted, plaintiff received a notice from defendant countermanding it. *Held,*that defendant was not liable on the order, there being no consideration for the stipulation that it should not be countermanded.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by the Hallwood Cash Register Company against Michael J. Finnegan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Hardiman & McGoldrick, for appellant.

Sands & Wasservogel, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J..

The defendant, by writing dated March 4, 1903, ordered one Total-Adding Register of the plaintiff, upon terms therein stated, and expressly agreed that “this order shall not be countermanded.” Whether the order was sent by mail, or handed to a representative of the plaintiff, empowered to or who did accept it on its behalf, does not appear; and so there is no evidence of acceptance of the order earlier than March1 9th, when the plaintiff tendered delivery of the machine, and March 12th, when by letter it acknowledged the receipt of the order. Prior thereto, and March 7th, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant—a registered letter—countermanding the order. In this, its action for the purchase price, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the *155court below “following the decision of Ideal Cash Register Company against Frank S. Zunino, decided November, 1902, by the Appellate Term,'"’ and the defendant appeals, contending no liability because no contract. He is right, for his statement that he would not countermand, being without consideration, was not binding, and acceptance or acts tending thereto by the plaintiff, subsequent to the revocation of the order, were unavailing and ineffectual. The case of Ideal Cash Register Co. v. Zunino, 39 Misc. Rep. 311, 79 N. Y. Supp. 504, is distinguishable, in that the order there given was accepted by the plaintiff, and was treated as a contract by the parties; the defendant contending that the plaintiff had mistaken its remedy, not that it had no remedy. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3929 Directorate ID: 2015-SW-031-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4, EC130T2, AS350B, AS350B1, 

AS350B2, AS350B3, AS350BA, AS350C, AS350D, AS350D1, AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, 

AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 1,132 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to detect cracks in a cross-bar and prevent failure of 

the cross-bar and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

• Visually inspecting the cross-bar would require 16.5 work-hours for a labor 

cost of about $1,403. No parts would be needed so that the cost for the U.S. fleet would

total $1,588,196 per inspection cycle.

• Replacing the cross-bar would cost $1,630 for parts. No additional labor 

costs would be needed. 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
MEMORANDUM

TO: The General Counsel

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 96-88, 20 U.S.C. § 3472), I hereby delegate to you, to your 

successor in function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or delegated the 

authority to perform the functions and duties or your position, the authority to request from 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority a general statement of policy or guidance pursuant to 5 

C.F.R. § 2427.2(a).

Unless otherwise specified in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of the delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS 

This delegation is not applicable to any other labor relations authority other than the authority 

articulated in 5 C.F.R. Part 2427.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegation 

Control Officer, and it supersedes all previous delegations of this authority, including 

Delegation EA/EG/127 certified on August 29, 2019.

__________/s_______________

Betsy DeVos

OGC Concurrence and Date:___Michael Taylor, 9/6/19______________________

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens, 

Date Certified: 9/9/2019

Control Number: EA/EG/128
No. 99-40740 

-1-

 

* 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. 99-40740

Summary Calendar

 

PEDRO MUNOZ, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ORALIA MUNOZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; CARRIE TOUSANT;

JAIME ZAPATA, JR.; SCOTT A. KEMP,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-99-CV-42

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

March 3, 2000

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pedro and Oralia Munoz appeal the district court’s sua

sponte dismissal of this civil action for lack of federal

subject-matter jurisdiction. They argue that the district court

had diversity jurisdiction because they are citizens of Texas and

State Farm Lloyd’s principal place of business is in Illinois and

because the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000. Because the
No. 99-40740 

-2-

Munozes named other nondiverse parties, including Carrie Tousant,

Jaime Zapata, Jr., and Scott A. Kemp, the district court did not

err in dismissing the civil action for lack of federal subjectmatter jurisdiction. See Owen Equip. and Erect. Co. v. Kroger,

437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978); Whalen v. Carter, 954 F.2d 1087, 1094

(5th Cir. 1992). The Munozes’ appeal is without merit and is

thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Three-Five
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jack L. Saltich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


THREE-FIVE SYSTEMS, INC.


/s/ Jack L. Saltich
---------------------------------------
Jack L. Saltich
Chief Executive Officer

Date:   August 2, 2002
EXHIBIT 15

November 6, 2009

El Paso Electric Company

El Paso, Texas



|Re: | Registration Statement Nos. 333-17971, 333-82129, 333-123646, 333-142557, and 333-151021
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 6, 2009 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or
certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
#### § 70.11 DoD semiannual report.

(a) Semiannual reports will be submitted by the 20th of April and October for the preceding 6-month reporting period (October 1 through March 31 and April 1 through September 30).

(b) The reporting period will be inclusive from the first through the last days of each reporting period.

(c) The report will contain four parts:

(1) *Part 1.* Regular Cases.

(2) *Part 2.* Reconsideration of President Ford's Memorandum of January 19, 1977, and Special Discharge Review Program Cases.

(3) *Part 3.* Cases Heard under Pub. L. 95-126 by waiver of [10 U.S.C. 1553](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/10/1553), with regard to the statute of limitations.

(4) *Part 4.* Total Cases Heard.

Semiannual DRB Report—RCS DD-M(SA) 1489; Summary of Statistics for Discharge Review Board (FY )

[Sample format]

| Name of board | Nonpersonal appearance | | | Personal appearance | | | | Total | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Applied | Number approved | Percent approved | Applied | Number approved | Percent approved | Applied | Number approved | Percent approved |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Note: | | | | | | | | | |
| Identify numbers separately for traveling panels, regional panels, or hearing examiners, as appropriate. | | | | | | | | | |
| Use of additional footnotes to clarify or amplify the statistics being reported is encouraged. | | | | | | | | | |
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

Certifications

 

I, François Legros, certify that:

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A-1 of Genesys; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date: | May 18, 2005 |  
 
By:

/s/ FRANÇOIS LEGROS

Name: François Legros

Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Exhibit 12.1**

 

Certifications

 

I, Michael E. Savage, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 20-F/A-1 of Genesys; and

 

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.

 

 

Date:

May 18, 2005

 
 
By:

/s/ MICHAEL E. SAVAGE

Name: Michael E. Savage

Title: Chief Financial Officer

  |
|-------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|