alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral

estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 17 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANNA J. HELMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-3168

(D.C. No. 94-CR-10117-02)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Danna Helms pleaded guilty to interstate transportation in aid of

a racketeering enterprise. The sentencing guidelines yielded a range of

imprisonment of 87 to 108 months. See II R., doc. 148 at 2-3. The maximum

penalty established by statute, however, was 60 months. See 18 U.S.C. §

1952(a)(3)(A) The district court sentenced defendant below the statutory
- 2 -

maximum, to 54 months, because she was a minor participant in the offense, the

offense was aberrant behavior for her and was caused by her desire to feed her

drug addiction.

On appeal, defendant challenges the degree of the district court's downward

departure from the sentencing guidelines. She argues that the district court

should have relied on a combination of factors, including her low degree of

culpability, her difficult childhood and psychological problems, to depart even

further. It is well settled that, absent incorrect application of the guidelines, we

lack jurisdiction to review defendant's challenge to the degree of downward

departure from the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Bromberg, 933 F.2d

895, 896-97 (10th Cir. 1991); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Bing Yeh, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.;
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(s) 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:
5. 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;
6. 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; and
7. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and
8. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
9. 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; and
10. 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: November 15, 2004



|/s/ Bing Yeh                                  
|----------------------------------------------
|Bing Yeh
President and Chief Executive Officer

---
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6033-5 Disclosure by tax-exempt entities that are parties to certain reportable transactions. ( a ) *In general.* For provisions relating to the requirement of the disclosure by a tax-exempt entity that it is a party to certain reportable transactions, see § 1.6033-5 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).
( b ) *Effective date/applicability date.* This section applies with respect to transactions entered into by a tax-exempt entity after May 17, 2006.
[T.D. 9492, 75 FR 38710, July 6, 2010]
Exhibit 99.1



                    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 Quarterly  Report of Beechport  Capital  Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Gary M. De Laurentiis, 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary M. De Laurentiis
-------------------------
Gary M. De Laurentiis
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 12, 2002
§ 300.7 Enrollment of enrolled actuary fee. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the initial enrollment of enrolled actuaries with the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries pursuant to 20 CFR Part 901.
( b ) *Fee.* The fee for initially enrolling as an enrolled actuary with the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries is $680.00.
( c ) *Person liable for the fee.* The person liable for the enrollment fee is the applicant filing for enrollment as an enrolled actuary with the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning November 20, 2023.
[T.D. 9370, 72 FR 72607, Dec. 21, 2007, as amended by T.D. 9503, 75 FR 60321, Sept. 30, 2010; T.D. 9982, 88 FR 72370, Oct. 20, 2023]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: March 2, 2018 |   | By:    | /s/ Craig W. Packer |
|---------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                |   |   | Craig W. Packer          |
|                |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
----

Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-481/06)

(2006/C 326/99)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission received a complaint relating to the provision of Greek legislation which has placed all material for medical use into categories and set a specific maximum price for each category. That provision, in conjunction with the joint ministerial decisions implementing it, constitutes a legislative framework which allows the direct award of public supply contracts for whole groups of the foregoing products which are classified as not comparable.

In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission considers that the legislative framework in question is contrary to Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts and to the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition. Inasmuch as that provision is in the nature of an exception, it must be interpreted narrowly and it is not possible to allow direct awards for whole categories of products. Also, contracting authorities must make sure that effective competition is preserved and ensure transparency in the public supply field, which is not possible with direct awards, apart from the exceptional cases laid down in Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36.

The Greek authorities did not contest the Commission's submissions or the existence of the alleged infringement and announced their intention to amend the legislative provision at issue. Nevertheless, no such amendment had been made known up until the date on which the action was brought.

The Commission consequently considers that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36 and its obligation to ensure effective and fair competition.

----

(1)OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1.

----
#### George Raffia et al. *v.*Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Enfield et al.

*Paul M. Paiten,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Joseph P. Cooney,*with whom was *Philip E. Tatoian,*for the appellee (defendant Skomro); with him also was *Anthony C. Ward,*for the appellee (defendant board).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1963

The motion by the plaintiffs to sustain their appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
** 
**Title:****Louisiana, Morgan City to PortAllen, including the Atchafalaya River
 
 
**Year
**jpg
**pdf
**jpg
**pdf
** 
 
 
 
 
**1997
11354-00p2
11354-00p2
11354-00p3
11354-00p3
** 
11354-5p0
11354-5p0
11354-5p1
11354-5p1
** 
 
 
 
 
**1999
11354-06
11354-06
 
 
** 
 
 
 
 
**2001
11354-09
11354-09
 
 
** 
 
 
 
 
**2003
11354-04
11354-04
 
 
** 
 
 
 
 
**2005
11354-04
11354-04
 
 
** 
 
 
 
 
**2006
11354-11
11354-11
 
 
** 
 
 
 
 
**2008
11354-08
11354-08
 
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:11354/
Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000921447
 
December 20, 2017********************************************
From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Date: 

F.iberman Edward P. 

Besf. AlflM fOSTI 

Remo. LiiurFifOSTl 

RE: Twin Gties Air Service 

Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:18:51 AM 

Doci<:£T DoT-OSr-c301l-003a. 

>jti-'ARTM£NT OF 

.J^^A^!SPOhMO^j 

•-''-'UKrT OPERATIONS 

201! M2U P 2-- 3U 

Aleta. they have 15 employees. 

Let me know if you.need any other information. Can you give me an estinnate when this will move 

forward. 

Thanks, 

Ed 

From: Aleta.Best@dot.gov [mailto:Aleta.Best@dot.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:18 PM 

To: Faberman, Edward P. 

Cc: Laura.Remo@dot.gov 

Subject: Twin Cities Air Service 

Hi, Ed, 

We're continuing to work on Twin Cities' application, and I have one last question for you. 

How many total employees does Twin Cities have? 

Thanks, and I'll get back to you once we've completed the analysis. 

Sincerely, 

Aleta 

ACeta (Best 

Transportation Industry Analyst 

Office of Aviation Analysis (W86-498) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 20590 

[21 E-Mail: aleta.bestgidot.gov 

a Phone: 202-493-0797 

(gi Fax: 202-366-7638 

NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may 

constitute an attorney-client communication and maycontain information that is 

PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not 

an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this 

message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please do 

not read, copy or forward this message. Please permanently delete all copies and 
any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending an e-mail to 

Information@wileyrein.com. As part of our environmental efforts, the firm is WILEY 

GREENf"'"'^^ Please consider the environment before printing this email.
#### Amelia ROMANO-BARBOZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 01-70417.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Amelia Romano-Barboza, a native and citizen of Argentina, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) order of *334removal and denial of her applications for waiver of inadmissibility, cancellation of removal, and withholding of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order of removal against Romano-Barboza, because she is an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); *Flores-Miramontes v. INS,*212 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.2000). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) and the BIA’s denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that, because Romano-Barboza committed “particularly serious” crimes, she is ineligible for withholding of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; *Matsuk v. INS,*247 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Docket Number: FAA-2013-0707
##### 



Exhibit 11 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31 2004
    
    2003A   Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    50.7
    
    
    $
    3.2B   Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    $
    3.4
    
    
    $
    1.6C   Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)
    
    $
    54.1
    
    
    $
    4.8D   Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    53,343,000
    
    
    
    52,089,000E   Net additional shares issuable for diluted
earnings per share calculation
    
    
    680,000
    
    
    
    223,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    $
    0.95
    
    
    $
    0.06Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    $
    0.94
    
    
    $
    0.06UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    $
    1.01
    
    
    $
    0.09Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))
    
    $
    1.00
    
    
    $
    0.09
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4152

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JODY SCOTT CALLOWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-00-160) Submitted: December 18, 2003 Decided: January 15, 2004 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles L. Morgan, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Kenneth M. Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jody Scott Calloway pled guilty to bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(c), 2 (2000), and money laundering, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1956(h), 2 (West 2000 & Supp. 2003). The district court imposed a sentence of seventy-eight months. Calloway appeals the sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to depart below the guideline range pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual§ 5K2.0, p.s. (2002). We dismiss. At sentencing, Calloway proffered a variety of factors that he believed warranted a downward departure. The district court decided not to depart. In this circumstance, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision unless it resulted from a mistaken belief that the court lacked the authority to depart. United States v. Matthews , 209 F.3d 338, 352-53 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28, 30 (4th Cir. 1990). There is no indication here that the court failed to recognize its authority to depart. We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated asofOctober1,2015,byandamongWELLSFARGOCOMMERCIALMORTGAGESECURITIES,INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General MasterServicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVEBANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCBSpecial Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as One Court Square Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS3 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and ofits performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer,has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
(logo) pwc  **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**** **To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.: We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!*LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Companyhas determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform.Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company'scompliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteriaas of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPFebruary 25, 2016  *PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106**T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*