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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

November 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50237

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO EDUARDO CEDENO-ZAMBRANO, also known as Francisco

Cedeno-Zambrano, 

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-913-ALL

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Francisco Eduardo

Cedeno-Zambrano raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2013 - 0634 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2012 - SW - 023 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
§ 268.605 Representation and official time. ( a ) At any stage in the processing of a complaint, including the counseling stage under § 268.104, the complainant shall have the right to be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative of complainant's choice.
( b ) If the complainant is an employee of the Board, he or she shall have a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and to respond to Board and EEOC requests for information. If the complainant is an employee of the Board and he designates another employee of the Board as his or her representative, the representative shall have a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and respond to Board and EEOC requests for information. The Board is not obligated to change work schedules, incur overtime wages, or pay travel expenses to facilitate the choice of a specific representative or to allow the complainant and representative to confer. The complainant and the representative, if employed by the Board and otherwise in a pay status, shall be on official time, regardless of their tour of duty, when their presence is authorized or required by the Board or the Commission during the investigation, informal adjustment, or hearing on the complaint.
( c ) In cases where the representation of a complainant or the Board would conflict with the official or collateral duties of the representative, the Commission or the Board may, after giving the representative an opportunity to respond, disqualify the representative.
( d ) Unless the complainant states otherwise in writing, after the Board has received written notice of the name, address and telephone number of a representative for the complainant, all official correspondence shall be with the representative with copies to the complainant. When the complainant designates an attorney as representative, service of all official correspondence shall be made on the attorney and the complainant, but time frames for receipt of material shall be computed from the time of receipt by the attorney. The complainant must serve all official correspondence on the designated representative of the Board.
( e ) The complainant shall at all times be responsible for proceeding with the complaint whether or not he or she has designated a representative.
( f ) Witnesses who are Board employees shall be in a duty status when their presence is authorized or required by Commission or Board officials in connection with a complaint.
#### MAX BELL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MORRIS SIWOFF, RESPONDENT.

Submitted February 16, 1940 —

Decided April 25, 1940.

For the appellants, *Maurice D. Emont.*

For the respondent, *Vincent M. Rotolo.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Porter in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— Case, Bodine, Hehek, Peeskie, Heteield, Dbae, Wells, WolesKeil, Hague, JJ. 9.

*For reversal*— Pabkek, Raeeekty, JJ. 2.
<PAGE>

                                       EXHIBIT 10.4.3

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
              GENERAL AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE CELLULAR SYSTEMS

    The undersigned parties to this agreement acknowledge that they are
entering into a first amendment (the "First Amendment") to the General
Agreement, Number LNM011398RMDCS, for Purchase of Cellular Systems, between
Lucent Technologies Inc. (Seller), a Delaware corporation having an office at
283 King George Road, Warren, New Jersey  07059, and Dobson Cellular Systems,
an Oklahoma corporation having an office at 13429 N. Broadway Extension Suite
200, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73114.

                                   RECITALS

    WHEREAS, the undersigned parties have previously entered into the General
Agreement; and

    WHEREAS, the undersigned parties now wish to modify the General Agreement
with respect to the Customer's purchases associated with properties in
Michigan 3.

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned parties hereby agree to modify the
General Agreement as follows:

    1.  The term of the General Agreement is extended to January 13, 2002.

    2.  Customer agrees to purchase a total of 400 cell sites and spend a
        minimum of $131 million during the term of the General Agreement, of
        which 157 cell sites and $54.2 million have been achieved by Customer
        as of April 10, 2000.

    3.  Seller will receive vendor exclusivity in Michigan except for
        existing or acquired Nortel properties.

    4.  Customer will pay existing contract cell model prices up through a
        cumulative total of 162 cells.

    5.  Exhibit 1, Pricing Summary and Pricing Summary Notes and Exhibit 2,
        Growth Pricing, are hereby incorporated as part of this Amendment 1.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this First Amendment to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives on the date(s) indicated.

DOBSON CELLULAR SYSTEMS                LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:                                    By:
   --------------------------------       ------------------------------------

Name:   G. Edward Evans                Name:
                                            ----------------------------------

<PAGE>

Title:  President                      Title:
                                             ---------------------------------

Date:   April 10, 2000                 Date:
                                            ----------------------------------





















                                       2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,353,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              144,880,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,084,000
<INVENTORY>                                 70,844,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           229,967,000
<PP&E>                                     213,745,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              49,988,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             698,381,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       90,536,000
<BONDS>                                    207,485,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,277,000
<COMMON>                                       578,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 207,083,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               698,381,000
<SALES>                                    241,909,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           241,909,000
<CGS>                                      218,928,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              218,928,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            24,757,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,328,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,129,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,910,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,219,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,335,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)


</TABLE>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2984 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to remove the 

requirement that processors be members of an agency 

administering a marketing order applicable to pears. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2984 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. PEAR MARKETING ORDERS. 

2 Section 8c(7)(C) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

3 (7 U.S.C. 608c(7)(C)), reenacted with amendments by the 

4 Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amend5 ed in the last sentence— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘or pears’’; and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘: Provided,’’ and all that fol8 lows through ‘‘be equal’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 5, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
Exhibit 23


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Quad Systems Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan and Quad
Systems Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-04755) and the Quad
Systems Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Form S-8 No. 33-93436) of our
report dated November 1, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Quad Systems Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 1996.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
December 18, 1996
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gelu Voicu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc.

Date: July 3, 2008



By:

/S/ GELU VOICUName:

Gelu VoicuTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


I, David Eichler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 27, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Catalyst Semiconductor, Inc.

Date: July 3, 2008



By:

/S/ DAVID EICHLERName:

David EichlerTitle:

Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3056 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3056

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To clarify the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coast Barrier Resources 
      System Cedar Keys Unit P25 on Otherwise Protected Area P25P.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER 
              RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP.

    (a) In General.--Of the 2 maps subtitled ``P25/P25P'' that relate 
to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated 
as Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys Unit P25/P25P and are 
included in the set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier Resources 
System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), the map depicting the northernmost area of 
that unit is hereby replaced by another map relating to that unit 
entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Cedar Keys 
Unit P25/P25P'' and dated February 9, 2004.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# C_2022143EN.01001101.xml

| 31.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/11

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2022/C 143/08)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 16 December 2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 87895 |
| Decision No | 294/21/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Renewal of COVID-19 Guarantee scheme |
| Legal basis | Forskrift om endring i forskrift 27. mars 2020 nr. 490 til lov om statlig garantiordning for lån til små og mellomstore bedrifter, FOR-2020-03-27-490 |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Form of aid | Public guarantees |
| Budget | NOK 50 billion (for the scheme as amended) |
| Duration | Until 30 June 2022 |
| Economic sectors | All sectors |
| Name and address of the granting authority | GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency |
| Pb 1763 Vika |
| N-0122 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

16 December 2021

Case No

87895

Decision No

294/21/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Renewal of COVID-19 Guarantee scheme

Legal basis

Forskrift om endring i forskrift 27. mars 2020 nr. 490 til lov om statlig garantiordning for lån til små og mellomstore bedrifter, FOR-2020-03-27-490

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Ensure access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak

Form of aid

Public guarantees

Budget

NOK 50 billion (for the scheme as amended)

Duration

Until 30 June 2022

Economic sectors

All sectors

Name and address of the granting authority

GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency

Pb 1763 Vika

N-0122 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Internet:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gary Graves, Chief Executive Officer, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LPA Holding Corp. and La
Petite Academy, 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 registrants' as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants' other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(d)) for the registrants' and have:

     a) 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 registrants, 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;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants' 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

     c) 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

5. The registrants' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants' auditors and the audit committee of the registrants' board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
like to adversely affect the registrants' ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants' internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: September 25, 2003

By  /s/ Gary A. Graves
  ------------------------------
    Gary A. Graves
    Chief Executive Officer
#### §§ 313.102-313.119 [Reserved]
#### § 34.25 Transition rule.

If, on October 1, 1988, a national bank had made a loan or binding commitment to lend under an ARM loan program that complied with the requirements of 12 CFR part 29 in effect prior to October 1, 1988 (see 12 CFR Parts 1 to 199, revised as of January 1, 1988) but would have violated any of the provisions of this subpart, the national bank may continue to administer the loan or binding commitment to lend in accordance with that loan program. All ARM loans or binding commitments to make ARM loans that a national bank entered into after October 1, 1988, must comply with all provisions of this subpart.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Access to EducationCompliance (Legal)DisabilitiesDisadvantaged YouthEducation Work RelationshipEducational ImprovementEducational PolicyExceptional PersonsFederal LegislationFederal State RelationshipJob TrainingPolicy FormationPostsecondary EducationProgram EffectivenessProgram ImplementationProgram ImprovementSecondary EducationTwo Year CollegesVocational Education

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
427 A.2d 246

#### Miller, Appellant, v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Argued April 10, 1979.

J. M. Maurizi, for appellant;

Robert B. Banlo, for appellee.

Before SPAETH, WATKINS and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

Order and judgment affirmed.

SPAETH, J., concurred in the result.