alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose RAMIREZ-FLORES, a/k/a Raul Alfredo Ramirez-Del Rio, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4788.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 21, 2002.

Lisa S. Costner, Lisa S. Costner, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Juan Jose-Ramirez Flores appeals his ninety month sentence imposed pursuant to his conviction upon a guilty plea to one count of illegal re-entry after deportation for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1362(a) *&*(b)(2). (West Supp. 2001). Ramirez-Flores’ counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one possible sentencing issue on appeal but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Ramirez-Flores was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

At sentencing Ramirez-Flores requested a shorter sentence because his rather lengthy criminal record was the result of his drug and alcohol addictions rather than malice. The court considered this ground but elected not to depart, and chose to sentence him in approximately the middle of the applicable guideline range. Where the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart and simply declined to do so, we lack authority to review its decision. *See United States v. Bayerle,*898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.1990). We further lack the authority to review sentencing within the applicable guideline range if no error is *695alleged in the calculation of that range. 18 U.S.CA § 8742 (West Supp.2001); *United States v. Porter,*909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.1990).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Ramirez-Flores’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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 in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Represents gross revenue which includes costs of certain services contracted to
third parties and other reimbursable direct project costs, such as materials
procured by the company on behalf of its customers. Gross revenue also includes
equity in net income of unconsolidated subsidiaries for purpose of this
schedule.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      42,437,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,205,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (9,358,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            82,760,000
<PP&E>                                       3,993,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,493,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,961,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      178,482,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       234,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (77,287,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,961,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           274,006,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            (195,367,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,695,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (6,479,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,499,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (7,694,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,804,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (7,620,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,459,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.45)


</TABLE>
#### § 157.6165-1 Bonds where time to pay tax has been extended.

If an extension of time for payment is granted under section 6161, the Internal Revenue Service may, if it deems necessary, require a bond for the payment, in accordance with the terms of the extension, of the amount with respect to which the extension is granted. However, the bond shall not exceed double the amount with respect to which the extension is granted. For provisions relating to the form of bonds, see the regulations under section 7101 contained in part 301 (Regulations on Procedure and Administration) of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2395

VERA C. HARPER, on her behalf and as personal 

representative of the Estate of Wilson Clark Harper, 

Deceased; DAVID A. HARPER, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

 v. 

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a/k/a USAA; STEVE 

LEE; J. LOUIS BLANCO; STEPHEN HORVATH; JANICE BUCHMAN; JUDGE 

ROUSCH, Circuit Court Judge; JUDGE KEITH, Circuit Court 

Judge; JUDGE WOLDRIDGE; THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; DOES 

1-50, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:08-cv-00478-LO-TRJ) 

Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Vera C. Harper, David A. Harper, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Vera C. Harper and David A. Harper appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice their civil complaint 

and allowing them to file an amended complaint within sixty days 

of the entry of the court’s order. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). An order granting 

leave to amend is interlocutory as it leaves the case open for 

either amendment of the complaint or entry of final judgment. 

Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 337 (1958) (quoting 

Missouri & Kansas Interurban Ry. Co. v. City of Olathe, 222 U.S. 

185, 186 (1911)); see also Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers 

Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993) (a 

dismissal without prejudice is not generally appealable). 

 Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We further deny Appellants’ motions to supplement 

the record on appeal and for oral argument. 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
##### 



Exhibit 11

POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN
INC.

COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30


|  |  |                                                                               |  |      |            |      |  |   |            | 
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | ---- |  | - | ---------- | 
|  |  |                                                                               |  | 2003 |            | 2002
|  |  |                                                                               |  |      |            |     
|A |  | Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)                            |  | $    | 33.1       |      |  | $ | 24.7       | 
| 
|B |  | Items adjusting net income ($ millions)                                       |  | $    | 3.5        |      |  | $ | 3.7        | 
| 
|C |  | Net income, US GAAP ($ millions)                                              |  | $    | 36.6       |      |  | $ | 28.4       | 
| 
|D |  | Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                 |  |      | 52,094,000 |      |  |   | 51,989,000 | 
| 
|E |  | Net additional shares issuable for diluted
    earnings per share calculation |  |      | 237,000    |      |  |   | 315,000    | 
|  |  | CANADIAN GAAP                                                                 |  |      |            |      |  |   |            | 
|  |  | Basic earnings per share (A/D)                                                |  | $    | 0.64       |      |  | $ | 0.47       | 
|  |  | Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))                                          |  | $    | 0.63       |      |  | $ | 0.47       | 
|  |  | UNITED STATES GAAP                                                            |  |      |            |      |  |   |            | 
|  |  | Basic earnings per share (C/D)                                                |  | $    | 0.70       |      |  | $ | 0.55       | 
|  |  | Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+E))                                          |  | $    | 0.70       |      |  | $ | 0.54       |
§ 20.2044-2 Effective dates. Except as specifically provided in *Example 7* of § 20.2044-1(e), the provisions of § 20.2044-1 are effective with respect to estates of a decedent-spouse dying after March 1, 1994. With respect to estates of decedent-spouses dying on or before such date, taxpayers may rely on any reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions. For these purposes, the provisions of § 20.2044-1 (as well as project LR-211-76, 1984-1 C.B., page 598, see § 601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b ) of this chapter), are considered a reasonable interpretation of the statutory provisions. [T.D. 8522, 59 FR 9647, Mar. 1, 1994]
§ 20.2001-2 Valuation of adjusted taxable gifts for purposes of determining the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount of last deceased spouse. ( a ) *General rule.* Notwithstanding § 20.2001-1(b), §§ 20.2010-2(d) and 20.2010-3(d) provide additional rules regarding the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to examine any gift or other tax return(s), even if the time within which a tax may be assessed under section 6501 has expired, for the purpose of determining the deceased spousal unused exclusion amount available under section 2010(c) of the Internal Revenue Code.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* Paragraph (a) of this section applies to the estates of decedents dying on or after June 12, 2015. See 26 CFR 20.2001-2T(a), as contained in 26 CFR part 20, revised as of April 1, 2015, for the rules applicable to estates of decedents dying on or after January 1, 2011, and before June 12, 2015.
[T.D. 9725, 80 FR 34284, June 16, 2015]
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Robert W. Benson, certify that:

 

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of ProCyte Corporation;

 

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                                      Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;

 

b)                                     Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon suchevaluations; and

 

c)                                      Disclosed in the report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)                                      All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information ; and

 

b)                                     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  August 20, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Robert W. Benson                                            |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Robert W. Benson, Chief Financial Officer,  ProCyte Corporation |

 

----
Exhibit 13.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  The undersigned, who is carrying out the functions of chief financial officer for Brookfield Business Partners L.P. (the Partnership) pursuant to a Master Services Agreement, dated June 1, 2016, among Brookfield Asset Management Inc., the Partnership, Brookfield Business L.P. and others, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (i) the annual report of the Partnership on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.  Dated:   March 10, 2017/s/   Craig LaurieName:
Craig   LaurieTitle:
Chief   Financial Officer, Brookfield Business Partners L.P.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 2.9 (c) of the 2015-3 Servicing Supplement dated as of
September 2, 2015 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2015-3 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the
closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and GMF Leasing LLC in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same
meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the
Servicer. I further certify as follows:



|1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, and its performance under the Agreement.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|    |  | AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.    |  |  |  |                      
|    |  |                                         | 
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 15, 2017
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |  |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,404,985
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  476,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,881,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          416,078
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,465,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,881,706
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               76,200
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               17,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                59,042
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   59,042
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .11
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5192-5193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1883]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting.

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 
29, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain

[[Page 5193]]

staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (6), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of 
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Acting Chairman Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the 
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined 
that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
January 29, 2009 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
    A litigation matter;
    A collection matter;
    Adjudicatory matters; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 23, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1883 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

JOANNE TAYLOR

- COTTEN

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 1 6

- cv

- 2036 (KBJ)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al

. . , )

)

Defendants. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 27, 2017 , the defendants in this matter filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiff’s amended complaint. ( See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19 .) T he L ocal Civil

R ules of this Court provide that “[w]ithin 14 days of the date of service or at such other

time as the court m ay direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of

points and authorities in opposition to the motion [or] the Court may treat the motion as

conceded.” LCvR 7(b). To date, plaintiff ’ s counsel has neither filed an opposition to

the motion nor requested more time to do so. The refore, the Court will GRANT the

defendant s ’ motion as conceded and will DISMISS this action without prejudice.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: May 9, 2018 

## Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge