alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1116

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Corey Andrew Barr, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 2012

 Filed: June 18, 2012

___________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Corey Andrew Barr pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after being convicted

of domestic-violence offenses, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(9) and 924(a)(2). The District

Court1

 imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence. Barr’s counsel has moved to

withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the sentence. Barr has filed a pro-se supplemental brief in which he

claims ineffective assistance of counsel and also challenges his sentence.

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.
In Barr’s written plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence,

directly or collaterally, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel,

prosecutorial misconduct, or an illegal sentence. Barr’s ineffective-assistance claim

is not barred by the appeal waiver, but we decline to consider it on direct appeal. See

United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (“We ordinarily defer

ineffective assistance of counsel claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings.”). And we

conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable as to Barr’s remaining challenges to his

sentence. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir.) (en banc)

(discussing enforcement of appeal waivers), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 997 (2003). We

have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal

waiver. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the

appeal.

______________________________

-2-
#### § 1.642(c)-4 Nonexempt private foundations.

In the case of a trust which is, or is treated under section 4947(a)(1) as though it were, a private foundation (as defined in section 509(a) and the regulations thereunder) that is not exempt from taxation under section 501(a) for the taxable year, a deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside, or used for a purpose specified in section 642(c) (1), or (2) shall not be allowed under § 1.642(c)-1 or § 1.642(c)-2, but such trust shall, subject to the provisions applicable to individuals, be allowed a deduction under section 170 for charitable contributions paid during the taxable year. Section 642(c)(6) and this section do not apply to a trust described in section 4947(a)(1) unless such trust fails to meet the requirements of section 508(e). However, if on October 9, 1969, or at any time thereafter, a trust is recognized as being exempt from taxation under section 501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3), if at such time such trust is a private foundation, and if at any time thereafter such trust is determined not to be exempt from taxation under section 501(a) as an organization described in section 501(c)(3), section 642(c)(6) and this section will apply to such trust. See § 1.509 (b)-1 (b).

[T.D. 7357, 40 FR 23742, June 2, 1975; 40 FR 24362, June 6, 1975]
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Great Western Land and Recreation, Inc. (the
Company) for the six months ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jay N. Torok, Principal Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ Jay N. Torok
Jay N. Torok
Chairman of the Board and
Principal Executive Officer
July 25, 2005 This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge
standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose. This certification is not being filed
as part of this Report or as a separate disclosure document.
-  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) 
-  About DAB      -  Organizational Overview 
  -  Who are the Judges? 
  -  DAB Divisions 
  -  Contact DAB 
-  Filing an Appeal Online      -  DAB E-File 
  -  Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File 
-  Different Appeals at DAB      -  Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)         -  Forms 
    -  Procedures 
  -  Appeals to Board        -  Practice Manual 
    -  Guidelines 
    -  Regulations 
    -  National Coverage Determination Complaints 
  -  Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)        -  Forms 
    -  Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project 
-  Alternative Dispute Resolution Services      -  Sharing Neutrals 
  -  ADR Training 
  -  Other ADR Services 
-  DAB Decisions      -  Board Decisions 
  -  DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions 
  -  Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions 
-  Stakeholder Feedback 
-  Careers      -  Open Career Opportunities 
  -  Internships & Externships 

                        -   
                        -   
                        -   
                        -   
                        -   

# DAB Decisions

The DAB has three adjudicatory divisions, each with its own set of judges, staff and areas of jurisdiction. Each division issues its own decisions which may be reviewed here.

##             Board Decisions          

##             DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions          

##             Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions          

##             Updates to Decision Formats          

Content last reviewed September 13, 2016
Exhibit 12.1

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Andrea Pfeifer, certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 20-F of AC Immune SA;

 

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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;

 

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

 

4.       The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)       Evaluated the effectivenessof the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)       Disclosed in thisreport any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.       The company’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)       All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)       Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

Date:	March 17, 2017
§ 1.6050D-1 Information returns relating to energy grants and financing. ( a ) *Requirement of reporting.* Every person who administers a Federal, State, or local program a principal purpose of which is to provide subsidized energy financing (as defined in section 23(c)(10)(C) and the regulations thereunder) or grants for projects designed to conserve or produce energy shall make an information return for each calendar year beginning after December 31, 1983. However, the preceding sentence shall not apply if none of the financing and grants provided under such program during the calendar year relate either to expenditures described in section 23(c)(1) or (2), relating to the residential energy credit, made by a taxpayer before January 1, 1986, with respect to a dwelling unit or to section 38 property (as defined in section 48 and the regulations thereunder). That return shall be made on Form 6497 or, in the case of taxable gants, on Form 1099-G. (The latter form is prescribed pursuant to section 6041 as well as section 6050D.) The return shall include the following information: ( 1 ) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number of each taxpayer receiving financing or a grant made under such program during the calendar year with respect to either section 38 property or in the case of financing or a grant for energy conservation expenditures or renewable energy source expenditures made by the taxpayer before January 1, 1986, a dwelling unit that is located in the United States;
( 2 ) The aggregate amount of financing and grants received by the taxpayer under the program during the calendar year,
( 3 ) In the case of returns for financing or nontaxable grants, the name of the program under which the financing or grants are made; and
( 4 ) Any other information that is required by the form. For purposes of this section, the term “person” means the officer or employee having control of the program, or the person appropriately designated for purposes of section 6050D and this section.
( b ) *Time and place for filing.* Returns required to be made under this section shall be filed with the Internal Revenue Service Center designated in the instructions for Form 6497 or 1099-G on or before the last day of February (March 31 if filed electronically) of the year following the calendar year for which the return is made.
(Secs. 6050D and 7805, Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (94 Stat. 259, 26 U.S.C. 6050D; 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805))
[T.D. 8018, 50 FR 12532, Mar. 29, 1985, as amended by T.D. 8146, 52 FR 26673, July 16, 1987; T.D. 8895, 65 FR 50407, Aug. 18, 2000]
The County of Guadalupe,



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 17, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00497

- CV

David GOAD

, Appellant

v.

THE COUNTY OF GUADALUPE, TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 1923

- CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### CORRECTED ORDER

On September 5, 2014, this court issued an order requiring appellant to pay the remainder of the filing fee on or before November 4, 2014. That order was issued in error. Accordingly, we withdraw our September 5, 2014 order and render this order in its place.

A filing fee of $195.00 was due when this appeal was filed. See T EXAS S UPREME C OURT
O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N THE S UPREME C OURT

, I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF
A PPEALS

, AND B EFORE THE J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT L ITI GATION (Misc. Docket No.

13

- 9127, Aug. 16, 2013). The clerk of the court notified appellant of the total amount due in a letter dated July 16, 2014. On July 29, 2014, appellant paid $100.00 of the total amount due;
however, the full amount of the fee rem ains unpaid despite our decision to allow appellant additional time to remit the remainder of the fee. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

– at the tim e an item is presented for filing

– whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore order appellant, not later than September 29, 2014 to either (1) pay the remaining $95.00 of the applicable filing fee, or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from payingthe fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (prov iding that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# /

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

### tH3 {['[;**:~0 /~** **~~I** DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD 

### UnauthorizedAir Transportation, Unfair andDeceptivePractices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

### Unfair andDeceptive Practices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.

# / I 

# ' 2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: April 30, 2013
Respectfully submitted,

Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

Vinh Q. Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAJ(: 202-366-7152I /' • 

# . 3
Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that onthis 30th day ofApril, 2013, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 ByFirst Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 054 3 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JUSTIN GUY ZENO SHAWN WOLF MASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 30 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 25 2023

05/25/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0543
#### § 1.641(a)-1 Imposition of tax; application of tax.

For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970, section 641 prescribes that the taxes imposed by section 1(d), as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall apply to the income of estates or of any kind of property held in trust. For taxable years ending before January 1, 1971, section 641 prescribes that the taxes imposed upon individuals by chapter 1 of the Code apply to the income of estates or of any kind of property held in trust. The rates of tax, the statutory provisions respecting gross income, and, with certain exceptions, the deductions and credits allowed to individuals apply also to estates and trust.

[T.D. 7117, 36 FR 9421, May 25, 1971]
§ 1.25-7T Public notice (Temporary). ( a ) *In general.* At least 90 days prior to the issuance of any mortgage credit certificate under a qualified mortgage credit certificate program, the issuer shall provide reasonable public notice of— ( 1 ) The eligibility requirements for such certificate,
( 2 ) The methods by which such certificates are to be issued, and
( 3 ) The other information required by this section.
( b ) *Reasonable public notice* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Reasonable public notice means published notice which is reasonably designed to inform individuals who would be eligible to receive mortgage credit certificates of the proposed issuance. Reasonable public notice may be provided through newspapers of general circulation.
( 2 ) *Contents of notice.* The public notice required by paragraph (a) must include a brief description of the principal residence requirement, 3-year requirement, purchase price requirement, and new mortgage requirement. The notice must also provide a brief description of the methods by which the certificates are to be issued and the address and telephone number for obtaining further information.
[T.D. 8023, 50 FR 19354, May 8, 1985]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 27, 2010, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”) Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages' under specified circumstances. Specifically, Infosys Technologies Ltd., Bridgewater, NJ; CambridgeSoft, San Diego, CA; Merck, Boston, MA; Collaborative Drug Discovery, Burlingame, CA; Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; Thomson Reuters HealthCare and Science, Philadelphia, PA; and EMBL/EBI, Hinxton, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 28, 2009, Pistola Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 4, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 9, 2009 (74 FR 65157).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-5032 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0317.02.005.520 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: 304m 2015 Annual Review 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 06/08/15 Time: 3:20 am

pm

Company Name: Iowa Department of Natural Resources ERG Staff Name: Kara Edquist

Contact Name: Wendy Heeb Contact Phone Number: ( 515) 725

- 8405

General Subject: Obtaining Tyson Fresh Meats, Columbus Junction, IA permit



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

June 8 th , 2015 at 3:20pm I called Wendy Heeb and left a voicemail.

June 8 th , 2015 at 4:40pm Ms. Heeb returned my call and left a voicemail. She explained the permit is still

expired and waiting on UAA stream designation. The facility is about to obtain a construction permit to extend

pipe to Cedar River, which would negate the need to wait for UAA stream designation. Once the pipe is in

place, IA DNR can move forward with permit reissuance. The new application should hopefully get to her

sometime this year.

On June 12 th at 10:14am I called Ms. Heeb and left a voicemail acknowledging we know that the faci lity falls

under 40 CFR part 432, Subcategory B, and asking if she would be able to comment on the type of the meat the

facility processed.

On June 12 th at 10:16am Ms. Heeb returned my call and stated it is a swine production (processes hogs) facility.
#### Loring J. Whiteside *v.*William T. Burlant, Sheriff

The motion by the plaintiff that the judgment and sentence of the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County in No. 4144 be declared null, void and of no effect is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See General Statutes § 52-263; *State*v. *Whiteside,*148 Conn. 208, 169 A.2d 260.

*726
      *Loring J. Whiteside,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*George B. Tiernan,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Argued November 5

decided November 5, 1963
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

#### § 1.404(a)-9 [Reserved]