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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41709

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

RUBEN GONZALES,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-118-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Gonzales has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Gonzales has filed a response. Gonzales’s request for appointment of new 

counsel is denied as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-

03 (5th Cir. 1998).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41709 Document: 00514386909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
No. 16-41709

2

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Gonzales’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41709 Document: 00514386909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018
Exhibit 32.2



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 Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Hoffman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence R. Hoffman                                                                             
|Lawrence R. Hoffman Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer



August 12, 2005



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
 Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 21-0005 

IN RE THE MOTION OF SCOTT 

MICHAEL PRUDHOMME FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE 

STATE OF MONTANA 

FILED 

SEP 2 8 2021 

Bowan Greenwood 

CleEtta rk of @cit S prerr ig aourt 

Scott Michael Prudhomme has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State 

of Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The 

Bar Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the 

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Prudhomme has provided the 

necessary documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on 

motion under Rule V. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, Scott Michael Prudhomme may be sworn in to the practice of law in the 

State of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of 

the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana. 

DATED this e r day of September, 2021. 

09/29/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0005
/Q4! ,7 ,,tJL 

Justices
PSD Permit Application and Related Documents
Conceptual WRAP and Selected Existing EDMS Comparison

Conceptual

WRAP EDMS

National

Emissions

Inventory

Tribal Emissions

Inventory

Software

Solution

California Air

Resources Board

Emissions

Inventory

Colorad

Departme

Health A

Pollution Inv

Data Tracking1

Pollutants 9 7 7 5 5 Sources 6 4 3 3 3 Activity Data Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Emissions Factors Yes Yes Yes No No Temporal Resolution Variable2 Annual Annual Annual AnnuaSpatial Resolution County /

Reservation / Point County / Point Reservation / Point County / Point County / P

 Standard Submission Format Yes Yes No3 Yes No4 

Data QA/QC1

Submission Format Check Yes Yes No3 Yes No4 Content Validation Yes Yes Yes Yes No4 

Submission Completeness Yes Yes Yes Yes No4 

Data Reporting1

Standard Summary Reports Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Regional Haze Rule Specific Reports Yes No No No No Data Exports Yes Yes Yes Minimal Minim

 Model Ready Input File, i.e. SMOKE Yes No No No No 

GIS Component1

Multiple Display Tools Provided Yes No Yes No Yes 

Ability to Query Emissions Database andDisplay Results

Yes No Yes No Yes 

User Access and Preferences1 Publicly Accessible via Internet Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

1 See Sections 3.1 and 3.3 for the description of the conceptual WRAP EDMS and the selected existing EDMS2 Some emissions data will be submitted at the hourly, daily, seasonal, or annual levels. However, the reporting temporal resolution will 3 TEISS does not have one standard submission format. In fact TEISS accepts many formats.4 This system is not the primary emission inventory system for Colorado. It is a secondary system included in this analysis because of its
[Cite as Assn. of Cleveland Fire Fighters IAFF Local 93 v. Cleveland Dept. of Law , 2020-Ohio-4906.]

{¶1} On August 11, 2020, a special master issued a report and recomm endation (R&R) in this public-records case. The special master recommen ds that the court (1) find that the requester’s request was, in part, ambiguous “and/ or” a request for a comprehensive record that did not exist, (2) find that a claim for production of public records that were reasonably identified has been rendered moot, and (3) assess court costs equally between the parties. (R&R, 6.) {¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the R&R, a s permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and recommendation, then this court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unl ess it determines that

there is an error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and

recommendation.” {¶3} Upon review, the court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on the face of the R&R of August 11, 2020. The court adopts the special master’s R&R, including the special master’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations contained in the R&R. Judgment is in favor of respondent. Court costs are assessed equally against the parties in accordance wi th the special master’s recommendation. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND FIRE FIGHTERS IAFF LOCAL 93

Requester

v.

CITY OF CLEVELAND, DEPARTMENT OF LAW

Respondent Case No. 2020-00037PQ

Judge Patrick M. McGrath

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2020-00037PQ -2- ENTRY

PATRICK M. MCGRATH Jud g e

Filed August 31, 2020 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/12/20
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00529

- CR Jenelius O. CREW , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 187th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CR12785 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez , Justice Lori I. V alenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023
AFFIRMED Appellant, Jenelius Odell Crew, pled true to three violations of his community supervision and was sentenced to ten years’ confinement

. The court

- appointed appellate attorney for Crew filed a brief, which included a request to withdraw, in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets th e requirements of Anders v. California , 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Crew and informed him04

- 22

- 00529

- CR

- 2

- of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Crew was notified of his right to request a copy of the record and file a pro se brief.
He did not file a pro se brief. See also Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

- 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v.
State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the request to wit hdraw filed by appointed counsel and affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. See id. ; Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Crew wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this op inion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzue la, Justice Do not publish
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0042n.06

Filed: January 14, 2008

06-2527

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

LAURIE C. KUTA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Laurie Kuta brought this action for employment

discrimination and retaliation against defendant General Motors Corporation, alleging

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and of Michigan’s

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2101. The district court granted summary

judgment to General Motors after determining that Kuta had failed to establish a prima

facie case of gender discrimination or to show that the company’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment was pretextual and, further, that she

had failed to satisfy the causation prong of the prima facie case necessary to sustain a

retaliation claim under either federal or state law.
06-2527

Kuta v. General Motors Corporation

- 2 -

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal

and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing

the complaint. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendant

have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this

court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion

granting summary judgment to the defendant, dated October 16, 2006.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 05, 2021.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 05, 2021

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21D0302. INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. TOP 

QUALITY RECRUITMENT, INC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV295535
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 168

Calling upon the members of the Army Reserve to wear Army uniforms

on April 23 each year and calling upon the American people to remember

the members of the Army Reserve and those who support them.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 30, 1996

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. MONTGOMERY) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

National Security

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling upon the members of the Army Reserve to wear

Army uniforms on April 23 each year and calling upon

the American people to remember the members of the

Army Reserve and those who support them.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) calls upon the members of the Army Re4 serve to wear Army uniforms on April 23 each year

5 to remind the American people of the commitment

6 made by the members of the Army Reserve who are

7 ready and willing to serve and protect our Nation

8 and its citizens when called upon to do so; and
2

•HCON 168 IH

1 (2) calls upon the American people to remember

2 the families of, employers of, and all others who as3 sist the members of the Army Reserve, who help en4 sure that the members of the Army Reserve are able

5 to serve and protect our Nation and its citizens

6 when called upon to do so.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                                 3,850,422
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            252,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,103,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          0
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,913,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,103,296
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,423,833
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         200,885
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         2,690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        2,220,258
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    2,220,258
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           2,220,258
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0


</TABLE>
39625.

#### NORMAN v. THE STATE.

Fbaniojm, Judge.

R. L. Norman was tried and convicted in the City Court of Gwinnett County on an accusation charging him with cheating and swindling “Towler Motor Company, a partnership consisting of James Towler, Dewey Towler and W. T. Towler”, out of certain described property “by using certain deceitful means and artful practices” and by making certain false and fraudulent representations to the “said partnership.” Before joining issue on the accusation the defendant demurred to the same, which demurrer was overruled. The defendant excepted to the overruling of his demurrer and the denial of his motion for new trial. *Held:*

The defendant contends by a ground of his demurrer that the accusation fails to allege to whom the alleged false and fraudulent representations were made, and that the accusation charges him with cheating and swindling “a partnership” rather than a “person.”

*642Decided September 25, 1962.

*Merritt & Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. B. Huff, Solicitor,*contra.

This court held in *McLendon v. State,*16 Ga. App. 262, 263 (2) (85 SE 200): “An allegation in ... an accusation that certain false and fraudulent representations were made, ‘to the firm of Rice & Phelps, a partnership composed of W. B. Rice and *W.*T. Phelps,’ as to the ownership of described property, etc., was not sufficiently definite, as the accused was entitled to know the specific person or persons to whom the representations were made, (a) Proof that the representations were made to an agent of the firm, and thus to the firm, would not be admissible under such an allegation. The particular person to whom the representations were made should be named in the accusation, in order to enable the accused to properly prepare his defense, and the proof should strictly conform to the allegations and show that the representations were made, to the identical person or persons named in the accusation.” See *McElmurray v. State,*76 Ga. App. 604 (47 SE2d 139). A partnership is not a person. See *Turnipseed v. State,*53 Ga. App. 194 (185 SE 403). Under the ruling in the *McLendon*case, supra, the court erred in overruling the defendant’s demurrer. All other proceedings were rendered nugatory and it is unnecessary to discuss the remaining assignments of error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
#### § 1.964-5 Effective date of subpart F.

Sections 951 through 964 and §§ 1.951 through 1.964-4 shall apply with respect to taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after December 31, 1962, and to taxable years of United States shareholders within which or with which such taxable years of such corporations end.

[T.D. 7120, 36 FR 10862, June 4, 1971]
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Göttingen

(Case C-437/06)

(2006/C 326/71)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SECURENTA Göttinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermögensmanagement AG als Rechtsnachfolgerin der Göttinger Vermögensanlagen AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Göttingen

Questions referred

----

(1)OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

----
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 7, 2009

l0930 

# Order

October 7, 2009

139105

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139105 COA: 288446 Bay CC: 2008-010116-FC PATRICK BYRON CHAMBERLAIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 7, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 1.672(d)-1 Power subject to condition precedent.

Section 672(d) provides that a person is considered to have a power described in subpart E (section 671 and following), part I, subchapter J, chapter 1 of the Code, even though the exercise of the power is subject to a precedent giving of notice or takes effect only after the expiration of a certain period of time. However, although a person may be considered to have such a power, the grantor will nevertheless not be treated as an owner by reason of the power if its exercise can only affect beneficial enjoyment of income received after the expiration of a period of time such that, if the power were a reversionary interest, he would not be treated as an owner under section 673. See sections 674(b)(2), 676(b), and the last sentence of section 677(a). Thus, for example, if a grantor creates a trust for the benefit of his son and retains a power to revoke which takes effect only after the expiration of 2 years from the date of exercise, he is treated as an owner from the inception of the trust. However, if the grantor retains a power to revoke, exercisable at any time, which can only affect the beneficial enjoyment of the ordinary income of a trust received after the expiration of 10 years commencing with the date of the transfer in trust, or after the death of the income beneficiary, the power does not cause him to be treated as an owner with respect to ordinary income during the first 10 years of the trust or during the income beneficiary's life, as the case may be. See section 676(b).