alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-40948

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID LAVERNE JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CR-20-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Laverne Jones appeals his sentence following his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute crack cocaine. Jones contends that the district court

erred by adjusting his offense level upward for Jones’s role in

the offense; that the cocaine base in his case was not crack

cocaine; and that the district court erred by attributing to him

5.61 kilograms of crack cocaine.
No. 95-40948

- 2 -

The presentence report and the testimony at sentencing

support the district court’s finding that Jones was a leader or

organizer of criminal activity involving five or more people or

was otherwise extensive; the upward adjustment was not clearly

erroneous. United States v. Boutte, 13 F.3d 855, 860 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 71 (1994); United States v. Barreto, 871

F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir. 1989).

Jones did not contend in the district court that the cocaine

base in which he trafficked was not crack; his contention is a

factual question that could have been resolved by the district

court had he raised that contention there. Jones cannot

demonstrate plain error. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d

114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995).

The indictment alleged that Jones conspired with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine; his contention that

the indictment limited the amount of crack on which his sentence

could be based is unavailing. In his objections to the

presentence report, Jones implicitly agreed with the cocaine-tocrack conversion ratio applied by the district court and with the

conversion of the amount of powder cocaine formerly in empty

wrapping material to crack cocaine for sentencing. Jones may not

now complain of the conversion ratio or the conversion of the

powder cocaine in the wrapping material. See Tel-Phonic Servs.,

Inc. v. TBS Int’l Inc., 975 F.2d 1134, 1137 (5th Cir. 1992). The

district court’s attribution of 5.28 kilograms of crack cocaine

based on the six kilograms of cocaine found to have been in the

empty wrapping material was supported by the presentence report
No. 95-40948

- 3 -

and the testimony at sentencing; the district court’s factual

finding was not clearly erroneous. United States v. Maseratti, 1

F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1096 &

1552; 115 S. Ct. 292 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
- 1

- Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

s ascha.vanderbellen@ delta .com

J une 4 , 201 4

via email and regulations.gov

B rett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

For M SP

- ZLO Service

Docket s DOT

- OST

- 201 4

- 0094

Dear M r. Kruger :

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carrier s on the service list to the above

referenced application and t here are no objec tions. In these circumstances, we urge that the

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

Bob Finamore , DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
#### Judith Shampaner et al., Respondents, v Harry Epstein et al., Defendants, and City of New York, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals " from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 25,1979, which, upon the city’s failure to appear at an examination before trial, granted -plaintiffs’ oral motion to strike its answer. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion to strike denied on the conditions that the city appear for an examination before trial, that the parties stipulate that the place of the examination may be other than within the county in which the action is pending, that the city pay the expenses of the examination and that the city pay plaintiffs’ attorney the sum of $500. The city shall pay the $500 and execute the stipulation within 10 days after service upon it of a copy of the order to be made hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The examination shall thereafter proceed at a time and place to be fixed in a written notice of not less than 10 days, to be given by plaintiffs, or at such other time and place as the *851parties may agree. In the event that any of the conditions are not complied with, then order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Renewed motion by the city to amend the record on appeal denied. We do not accept the city’s explanation for its failure to comply with court ordered discovery, but we hold that the sanction imposed was extreme under the circumstances of this case. The city should be afforded one *final*opportunity to comply (see CPLR 3126; *Cinelli v Radcliffe,*35 AD2d 829; *La Manna Concrete v Friedman,*34 AD2d 576). Under the circumstances of this case, it is not unreasonable to permit the examination to proceed at plaintiffs’ counsel’s office, or at a reasonable location of his choosing; the city shall assume the expenses of the examination and, in addition, shall pay the attorney for the plaintiffs the sum of $500. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
#### § 932.5 Olives.

*Olives* means the fruit of any variety of the species olea europaea, whether or not processed, grown within the area.
223 So.2d 868

#### Irma Tuggle HALL, wife of/and Leonard P. Hall, Jr. v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Inc.

No. 49901.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Irma Tuggle Hall, wife of/and Leonard P. Hall, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 221 So. 2d 642.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct

McCALEB, J., is of the opinion that a writ should be granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,648
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  338,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,077
<INVENTORY>                                     85,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               468,448
<PP&E>                                         739,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                 392,609
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,038,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          588,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,499,165
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,038,562
<SALES>                                        630,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               272,890
<CGS>                                          357,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (27,716)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,969)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76985-76986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31154]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 14, 2010, to consider the following 
matters:

Summary Agenda

    No substantive discussion of the following items is anticipated. 
These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a member of 
the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the discussion 
agenda.

Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
Summary reports, status reports, and reports of actions taken pursuant 
to authority delegated by the Board of Directors.
Memorandum and resolution re: Joint Final Rule: Amendment to the 
Community Reinvestment Act Regulation.

Discussion Agenda

Risk-Based Capital Standards: Market Risk.
Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework--
Basel II; Establishment of a Risk-Based Capital Floor.

[[Page 76986]]

Final Rule Setting the Designated Reserve Ratio.
Proposed 2011 Corporate Operating Budget.

    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp to view 
the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video 
Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 703-649-
4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at 202-898-7043.

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Valerie J. Best,
Assistant Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2010-31154 Filed 12-8-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Earnings and the Consolidated Balance Sheet of IP
Timberlands, Ltd. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           7,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,449
<PP&E>                                         686,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 831,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       632,386
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   831,699
<SALES>                                        205,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221,206
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,231)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                800,107
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            800,107
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   800,107
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     7.87
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, David W. Brandenburg, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intervoice, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238and 34-47986]; c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: July 1, 2004   /s/ David W. Brandenburg   David W. Brandenburg Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
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 Annual Report of Global Health Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hassan Salari, 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; and




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







By:




/s/ Hassan salari


Hassan Salari


Chief Executive Officer




May 27, 2011
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 21-2 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00193-MEF-CSC Document 21-2 Filed 08/16/2006 Page 2 of 2
From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Joseph Rykowski" <Joseph.Rykowski@ormet.com>

Cc: Robert Strieter <bstriete@aluminum.org>

Date: 12/09/2010 08:15 AM

Subject: Re: Ormet Database Files

It looks like we accidentally left out the units in the release point spreadsheet but they are the same units 

that are shown in the Whole Facility HAPs and Category HAPs spreadsheet. Temperature is degrees F, 

exit velocity is ft/sec. 

Bob, can you forward this to the others. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

From: "Joseph Rykowski" <Joseph.Rykowski@ormet.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/08/2010 04:01 PM

Subject: Ormet Database Files

I have a quick question about the database file. What units are the exit gas temperature and exit gas 

velocity in?
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Viking Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Irizarry,
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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
4th day of August, 2010.


/s/ Charles Irizarry
---------------------------
Charles Irizarry
Chief Executive Officer
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 17, 2015 520205

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. THOMAS A. KEARNEY, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID BARTLETT, as Columbia County Sheriff, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 10, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Thomas A. Kearney, Catskill, appellant pro se.

__________ Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), entered September 16, 2014 in Columbia County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered November 25, 2014, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner attempted to commence this habeas corpus proceeding seeking his immediate release from jail following his arrest on alleged parole violations. Supreme Court denied the application based upon the failure of the petition to be verified in accordance with CPLR 7002 (c). Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. These appeals ensued. Even if the deficiencies in petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus could be overlooked, the record establishes that, although petitioner is incarerated, he is no longer in-2- 520205

respondent's custody and, therefore, the appeal from this judgment has been rendered moot and must be dismissed (see e.g. People ex rel. Phillips v LaClair, 84 AD3d 1606, 1606 [2011]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the denial of his motion for reconsideration, we note that such motion was one for leave to reargue, as he alleged no new facts or demonstrated any change in the law (see People ex rel. Hinton v Graham, 66 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 934 [2010]; Matter of Hill v Goord, 275 AD2d 492, 493 [2000]). As no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue, that appeal must be dismissed (see id.). Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeals are dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
923.002 Policy.       (a) *Requirement.* FAR 23.002 and Section 3(e) of Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management, require contracts for the operation of Government-owned facilities or Government-owned motor vehicle fleets to include provisions that obligate the contractor to comply with the requirements of Executive Order 13423 to the same extent as the Federal agency would be required to comply if the agency operated the facility or fleet.          (b) *Contract clause.* Insert the clause at 970.5223-6, Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, in contracts for Contractor operation of a DOE facility or motor vehicle fleet.    **Parent topic:** PART 923 - ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE