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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30740

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUSTIN E. CALLAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-69-ALL-C

_________________________________________________________________

April 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender has filed a motion to

withdraw from the representation of defendant Justin E. Callahan,

who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and

was sentenced to 180 months in prison. The Public Defender asserts

that there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Callahan has

filed a response to this motion alleging that whether he was

properly sentenced as an armed career criminal presents a nonfrivolous issue.
2

Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), an appointed

attorney must follow established standards when seeking to withdraw

from a direct criminal appeal because the appeal lacks any arguable

issue. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, the

attorney must request permission to withdraw and must submit a

“brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably

support the appeal.” Id. at 744. The attorney must isolate

“possibly important issues” and must “furnish the court with

references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its

appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329

(5th Cir. 1976). After the defendant has had an opportunity to

raise any additional points, the court fully examines the record

and decides whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at

744.

Our review of the record in this case reveals no non-frivolous

issues for appeal. Callahan’s indictment was sufficient; his

guilty plea was taken by the court under proper Rule 11 safeguards;

the court complied with Rule 32 by affording Callahan an

opportunity to address the court; and his sentence was properly

enhanced under Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The

motion to withdraw is therefore GRANTED and the conviction is

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R.42.2.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Arrow
Resources Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(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/ Peter Frugone    
|---------------------
|Peter Frugone        
|                     
|Date: August 20, 2012
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-15675

 

 

DAVIDSON GROWTH PLUS, L.P. 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days. 

Yes[X] No [ ]

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No [X]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3175

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, as the ‘‘Richard D. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mr. REGULA (for himself, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, 

Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. TURNER of Ohio, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. 

LATOURETTE, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. 

KUCINICH, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. NEY, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. CHABOT, 

and Mrs. JONES of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘Richard D. Watkins Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. RICHARD D. WATKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in 

6 Canton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Richard D. Watkins Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 3175 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Richard D. Watkins 

5 Post Office Building.

Æ
#### § 267.6 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.

Except with respect to debts referenced in 31 U.S.C. 3717(g), the Board will charge interest, costs, and a six percent penalty on debts covered by this regulation in accordance with 31 CFR 901.9. The Board will not impose interest charges on the portion of the debt that is paid within 30 days after the date on which interest began to accrue, nor impose penalty charges on the portion of the debt that is paid within 90 days after the date on which penalty began to accrue. The Board will not impose any charges during periods during which collection activity has been suspended pending any review provided for in this part if the reviewing official determines that collection of such charges is against equity and good conscience or is not in the best interest of the United States. The Board may, in its discretion, also waive interest, penalties, and cost charges for good cause shown by the debtor (for example, the debtor is unable to pay any significant portion of the debt within a reasonable period of time, or collection of these charges will jeopardize collection of the principal of the debt) or otherwise as authorized in 31 CFR 901.9(g) and 902.2.
#### John Finck, Respondent, *v.*Simon Menke, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York, second district, borough of Manhattan.

L. L. G. Benedict, for appellant.

Leventritt *&*Brennan, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The complaint alleges that on or about the 5th day of June, 1899, at the special instance and request of the defendant, the plaintiff rendered and performed certain work, labor and services for the defendant, in procuring a loan of $5,000 on bond and mortgage, for which the defendant promised and agreed to pay the sum of $130, which was the reasonable value thereof.

The evidence shows that on or about the 5th day of June, 1899, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract, by which the. plaintiff agreed to procure for the defendant within ten days a loan of $5,000. The evidence also shows that the defendant never in fact received said money on said loan of $5,000, but the plaintiff *770claims that it was owing to the fault of the defendant in not delivering certain abstracts that he, the defendant, did not receive said money. There is nothing in the contract that required the defendant to deliver any abstracts to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s witness Niglutch, who seems to have had all the conversation that was had with Mente on the question of abstracts, testified, that Mente said to him, at the time the contract was made, that he, Mente, would try to get the abstract for the plaintiff. This certainly does not make an agreement on the part of Mente to furnish the abstracts. The case thus stands, that plaintiff did not procure a loan for the defendant within the ten days provided for by the contract and was not prevented by any act of the defendant from procuring such loan. It is moreover to be noted that plaintiff does not claim in his complaint that he was prevented by any act of the defendant from complying with the terms of the contract.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 4.h.1


                       ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

                 RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                ON JUNE 6, 2001

*  APPROVAL OF ADJUSTMENTS TO OUTSTANDING
   OPTIONS UNDER 1988 LONG-TERM INCENTIVES PLAN,
   1995 LONG-TERM INCENTIVES PLAN, 2000 LONG-TERM
   INCENTIVES PLAN AND DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN

        RESOLVED, that the adjustments to each outstanding option under the 1988
   Plan, 1995 Plan, 2000 Plan and this Corporation's Directors Stock Plan (the
   "Directors Plan" and, together with the 1988 Plan, the 1995 Plan and the 2000
   Plan, the "Rockwell Stock Plans") as described in the document entitled
   "Memorandum of Adjustments to Outstanding Options under Rockwell
   International Corporation's 1988 Long-Term Incentives Plan, 1995 Long-Term
   Incentives Plan, 2000 Long-Term Incentives Plan and Directors Stock Plan"
   (the "Memorandum"), a copy of which was presented to, and ordered filed with
   the supporting records for, this meeting, be, and they hereby are, approved
   and adopted, effective as of the Time of Distribution; and further

        RESOLVED, that for the purposes of the option adjustments provided for
   in the foregoing resolution and in the Memorandum, R.B. Shapiro is hereby
   appointed as a committee of the Board of Directors; and further

*  APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN OPTIONS

        RESOLVED, that whereas in connection with the Distribution, this
   Corporation and Rockwell Collins have determined that it is appropriate and
   desirable to provide for the allocation of certain assets and liabilities and
   certain other matters relating to employees, employee benefit plans and
   compensation arrangements, and whereas the circumstances giving rise to and
   the actions approved by means of this resolution are deemed to be in the best
   interests of this Corporation and its shareowners, the proposed assignment to
   and assumption by Rockwell Collins, effective as of the Time of Distribution,
   of outstanding options with respect to Company Common Stock under the
   Rockwell Stock Plans that become options ("Rockwell Collins Options") with
   respect to Rockwell Collins Common Stock pursuant to the adjustments provided
   for in the immediately preceding resolutions, be, and it hereby is, approved,
   and in connection with such assignment and assumption (A) Rockwell Collins
   shall be deemed to be "the Corporation" for all purposes under each of the
   Rockwell Collins Options and all outstanding stock option agreements relating
   thereto and (B) all references to any of the Rockwell Stock Plans in the
   Rockwell Collins Options and all outstanding stock option agreements relating
   thereto shall be to the 2001 Stock Option Plan of Rockwell Collins; and
   further
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4790

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RODNEY TERRELL NEWSOME,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:02-cr-00048-H)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: February 28, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following a hearing at which Rodney T. Newsome was found

to have violated conditions of his supervised release, the district

court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to twelve

months and one day in prison. Newsome appealed. Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

We review sentences imposed upon the revocation of

supervised release to determine whether the sentence is “plainly

unreasonable.” See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.

2006). Newsome’s sentence was nearly nine months below the

guidelines sentencing range of 21-24 months, and the court stated

a proper basis for its conclusion that Newsome be sentenced to

twelve months and one day of imprisonment. The court considered

that Newsome was the primary caretaker for his teenage son,

however, noted Newsome’s repeated criminal conduct and his failure

to notify his probation officer of being arrested. Because

Newsome’s sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively

unreasonable, we find that his sentence is not plainly

unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

determination. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials

before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19840-1 

Env
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         148,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,170
<INVENTORY>                                     10,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,162
<PP&E>                                          31,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,220
<SALES>                                         60,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,672
<CGS>                                           11,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,363
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,363
<EPS-BASIC>                                         49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       48


</TABLE>
§ 238.142 Applicability. ( a ) *Scope* — ( 1 ) *Applicability.* Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section, this subpart applies to any covered company, which includes: ( i ) Any Category II savings and loan holding company;
( ii ) Any Category III savings and loan holding company; and
( iii ) Any savings and loan holding company with average total consolidated assets of greater than $250 billion.
( 2 ) *Ongoing applicability.* A savings and loan holding company (including any successor company) that is subject to any requirement in this subpart shall remain subject to any such requirement unless and until the savings and loan holding company: ( i ) Is not a Category II savings and loan holding company;
( ii ) Is not a Category III savings and loan holding company; and
( iii ) Has $250 billion or less in total consolidated assets in each of four consecutive calendar quarters.
( 3 ) *Insurance savings and loan holding companies.* Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph (a), this subpart does not apply to a covered company that is subject to part 217, subpart J, of this chapter.
( b ) *Transitional arrangements.* ( 1 ) A savings and loan holding company that is subject to minimum capital requirements and that becomes a covered company on or before September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the second calendar year after the savings and loan holding company becomes a covered company, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
( 2 ) A savings and loan holding company that is subject to minimum capital requirements and that becomes a covered company after September 30 of a calendar year must comply with the requirements of this subpart beginning on January 1 of the third calendar year after the savings and loan holding company becomes a covered company, unless that time is extended by the Board in writing.
[84 FR 59085, Nov. 1, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 82979, Nov. 27, 2023]
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 327

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously 

to Garlin Murl Conner for acts of valor during World War II. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. WHITFIELD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor 

posthumously to Garlin Murl Conner for acts of valor 

during World War II.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR 

4 TO GARLIN MURL CONNER. 

5 Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in sec6 tion 3744(b) of title 10, United States Code, or any other 

7 time limitation, the President may award the Medal of 

8 Honor posthumously to Garlin Murl Conner of Clinton 

9 County, Kentucky, for acts of valor during World War II 
2

•HR 327 IH 

1 while serving in the 3d Infantry Division of the United 

2 States Army.

Æ
# C_2009171EN.01003301.xml

| 23.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33

---

The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for 3 EFTA States applicable as from 1 April 2009

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1))

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL (OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1))

2009/C 171/05

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting Reference and Discount rates of the Authority’s State aid Guidelines as amended by the Authority’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To get the applicable reference rate, appropriate margins have to be added in accordance with the State aid Guidelines. For the discount rate this means that the appropriate margin of 100 basis points has to be added to the base rate. The recovery rate will also normally be calculated by adding 100 basis points to the base rate as foreseen in the Authority’s Decision No 789/08/COL of 17 December 2008 amending the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL, 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and in the EEA Supplement No 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1).

| | Iceland | Liechtenstein | Norway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.1.2009-31.1.2009 | 16,42 | 2,95 | 6,43 |
| 1.2.2009-28.2.2009 | 16,42 | 2,33 | 5,41 |
| 1.3.2009-31.3.2009 | 16,42 | 1,58 | 4,26 |
| 1.4.2009- | 16,42 | 1,10 | 3,38 |

Iceland

Liechtenstein

Norway

1.1.2009-31.1.2009

16,42

2,95

6,43

1.2.2009-28.2.2009

16,42

2,33

5,41

1.3.2009-31.3.2009

16,42

1,58

4,26

1.4.2009-

16,42

1,10

3,38

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2019

No. 04-18-00610-CV

Michael P. GEARY, Independent Executor of the Estate of Joseph William Geary, Jr., Deceased 

and Falcon Energy, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

TOW BOW RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Two Bow Management, LC and Ronald L. 

Toms, Individually,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-03609

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellees’ Second Motion to Extend Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. Time 

is extended to May 6, 2019. Further requests for extension of time in which to file appellees’ 

brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### § 622.81 Default.

If the subject individual fails to file a petition for a hearing, or fails to appear at a hearing, either in person or by an attorney, or fails to submit a written argument where oral argument has been waived, the notice shall remain in effect until the information, indictment, or complaint is finally disposed of and the order shall remain in effect until terminated by the Board.