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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-10234

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS OJEDA-SUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-147-E

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Jesus Ojeda-Suarez has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 99.1




                           EMERGING GAMMA CORPORATION




                                  June 18, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20549

RE:     Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  March 31, 2002
        for Emerging Gamma Corporation (the "Company")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Consistent  with the  Commission's  release  of March 18,  2002,  please be
advised  that the Company has  obtained a letter from Arthur  Andersen  LLP, the
Company's    independent   public   accountants,    containing   the   following
representations  regarding the audit performed on the Company's balance sheet as
of March 31, 2002 and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2002 and 2001:


          .   the audit was subject to Arthur Andersen's  quality control system
              for  the  U.S.   accounting  and  auditing   practice  to  provide
              reasonable   assurance  that  the  engagement  was  conducted  in
              compliance with professional standards;

          .   there was  appropriate  continuity  of Arthur  Andersen  personnel
              working on the audit; and

          .   there   was   appropriate    availability   of   national   office
              consultation.

     Representation  relating  to  the  availability  of  personnel  at  foreign
affiliates of Arthur Andersen was not relevant to this audit.


                                         EMERGING GAMMA CORPORATION




                                         By: /s/ Burt H. Keenan
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Burt H. Keenan
                                             Chairman of the Board
#### § 121.233 Fuel lines and fittings in designated fire zones.

Fuel lines and fittings in each designated fire zone must comply with § 121.259.
# C_2004314EN.01001102.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

Removal from the register of Case C-424/03 (1)

(2004/C 314/25)

By order of 23 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-424/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

1

---
§ 121.259 Lines and fittings. ( a ) Each line, and its fittings, that is located in a designated fire zone, if it carries flammable fluids or gases under pressure, or is attached directly to the engine, or is subject to relative motion between components (except lines and fittings forming an integral part of the engine), must be flexible and fire-resistant with fire-resistant, factory-fixed, detachable, or other approved fire-resistant ends.
( b ) Lines and fittings that are not subject to pressure or to relative motion between components must be of fire-resistant materials.
#### HUBBEL *v.*BALDWIN.

Error — justices—court of record — statutory awards, and aibitration — rule, and day in -court.

A justice of the peace, is not a *court of*record, within the statute authorizing courts of record to proceed by rule of court to enforce statutory awards.

An *esc parte*judgment is not good; a defendant must have notice, and day in court.

Error to the Common Pleas. The plaintiff in error had entered into an arbitration bond, conditioned to abide the award of B. B. & *87B. arbitrators, to be made *a rule of court before L. Peat, a justice of the peace.*The arbitrators made an award, which was produced to justice Peat, and he, without notice to the plaintiff in error, entered judgment upon it against him. This judgment was removed by certiorari to the Court of Common Pleas, and was affirmed by that court. To reverse this affirming judgment of the Common Pleas, this writ of error is prosecuted.

Wright, J.

The act of assembly authorizes an award of arbitrators, made pursuant to a submission under arbitration bonds, to be made a rule of *any court of record.*That description, in the sense used in the act, does not include a justice’s court. By the terms, *courts of record,*the legislature is understood as intending to describe a higher court than that of a justice of the peace; a court with a common *seal,*whose proceedings are according to the course of the common law, where the proceedings are in writing, and where a full final record of the judgments is made. Such courts proceed by *rule*sometimes — justices do not. The arbitration bond in this case, therefore, is not taken under the statute, nor is the award a statutory one. No power is acquired under the act, to enter an ex parte judgment. If it were a statutory submission bond and award, no judgment could be entered on the award without *a rule and notice, giving the party to be charged, day in court.*It is not necessary to decide whether this bond is a good common law bond.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed, with costs.
#### § 1204.1103 Procedures.

The Center Directors and the Executive Director for Headquarters Operations shall issue local policies and procedural requirements, which will implement this regulation for their respective NASA Centers and component facilities.

[80 FR 70152, Nov. 13, 2015]
§ 121.253 Powerplant fire protection. ( a ) Designated fire zones must be protected from fire by compliance with §§ 121.255 through 121.261.
( b ) Designated fire zones are— ( 1 ) Engine accessory sections;
( 2 ) Installations where no isolation is provided between the engine and accessory compartment; and
( 3 ) Areas that contain auxiliary power units, fuel-burning heaters, and other combustion equipment.
### SERVED: MAY 15, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### RICKYZN DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0118 (Civil Penalty Action)



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014WA910001) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing DocketClerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

. 

### Ricky Ziv, Resc.ondent 

### 5105 North 40 Street, Apt. E-407 Phoenix, AZ 

### 85018 ONE COPY.



### Jay Trumble, Esquire, Respondent's Counsel 

### John Morse, Esquire· Association ofFlight Attendants-CWA 501 Third Street NW Washington, DC 20001 FAX: 888-241-7185 Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific Region, P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454**F~:.** 

### 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant F**~:** 

### 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014.:.0118 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in**perso~** orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · 2'
§ 9.6 Review of fiduciary accounts. ( a ) *Pre-acceptance review.* Before accepting a fiduciary account, a national bank shall review the prospective account to determine whether it can properly administer the account.
( b ) *Initial post-acceptance review.* Upon the acceptance of a fiduciary account for which a national bank has investment discretion, the bank shall conduct a prompt review of all assets of the account to evaluate whether they are appropriate for the account.
( c ) *Annual review.* At least once during every calendar year, a bank shall conduct a review of all assets of each fiduciary account for which the bank has investment discretion to evaluate whether they are appropriate, individually and collectively, for the account.
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.402 Grounds for suspension or revocation of charter and for involuntary liquidation. ( a ) *Grounds in general.* The NCUA Board may suspend or revoke the charter of any Federal credit union, and place such credit union into involuntary liquidation and appoint a liquidating agent therefor, upon its finding that the credit union has violated any provision of its charter or bylaws or of the FCUA or regulations issued thereunder.
( b ) *Immediate suspension.* In any case where the Board determines that the grounds set forth in paragraph (a) of this section exist and that immediate action is necessary in order to prevent further dissipation of credit union assets or earnings, or further weakening of the credit union's condition, or to otherwise protect the interest of the credit union's insured members or the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, it may order without prior notice the immediate suspension of the charter of such credit union, and if the circumstances so warrant, may take possession of all books, records, assets, and property of every description of such credit union.
[56 FR 37767, Aug. 8, 1991, as amended at 85 FR 62214, Oct. 2, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF INTEREP
NATIONAL RADIO SALES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          33,410
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,234
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,741
<PP&E>                                          23,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,705
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,891
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   211,379
<SALES>                                         46,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.7


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 annual report of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, Jeffrey A. Swinoga, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Golden Star Resources Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:


1. The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


2. The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Jeffrey A. Swinoga____________________


Jeffrey A. Swinoga


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer








Toronto, Canada


March 24, 2014
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justic

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on July 20, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Siemens Westinghouse: Dual-Fuel Catalytic Combustion for Advanced Gas Turbines has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, Orlando, FL; and Precision Combustion, Incorporated, New Haven, CT. The nature and objectives of the venture are to develop a dual-fuel catalytic system for high-temperature gas turbine engines for the power generation industry under the subject Advanced Technology Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations Antitrust Division

[FR Doc. 00-10599 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C. IN THE MATTER OF AIRLINE TRANSPORT PROFESSIONALS

FAA DOCKET NO. (TO BEASSIGNED) (CivilPenalty Action) (Judge Ronnie A. Yoder) FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0289 ANSWERAND DEFENSES Purported Respondent, by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 14 CFR §13.209 and this Court's Order served April 13, 2011, Answers Complainant's Complaint and reserving Respondent'stimeliness arguments and Motion for Stay ofProceedings states: I. 1. Admitted. II. 1. Denied. 

### 2. Denied. 3. Denied. 4. Denied. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. 

### 7. Denied. 8. Denied.FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### Purported Respondent is not the Owner of N304BK. The Aircraft Registry records maintained by Complainant clearly show and have shown that at all times material hereto N304BK was ownedby Airline Transport Professionals Corp USA, a Delaware corporation. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### PurportedRespondent is not the Operator ofN304BK. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### PurportedRespondent is notthe real partyin interest. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### The purported Respondent, Airline Transport Professionals, is not a legal entity. Airline Transport Professionals, Inc., a Georgia corporation, was never served with a Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty within the time prescribedby 14 CPR §13.208(d) and any Complaintpurportedly directed toward Airline Transport Professionals, Inc. should be dismissed. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### Neither the Owner nor the Operator ofN304BK was notified within two (2) years ofthe date of the alleged violations as required by 14 CPR §208(d) and the Complaint should be dismissed. SIXTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

### At all times material hereto the aircraft had an operational navigation and communicationradioand the aircraft was in airworthy condition for all flight materialhereto. LUDWIG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 

## n 

# l·

# d

. Taylor Speer, Esq. Florida Bar #0057427 5150 Belfort Road S., Building 500 Jacksonville, FL 32256 (904) 281-0145- Telephone (904) 493-0384- Facsimile Attorneys for Purported Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFYthat a copy ofthe foregofghas beenfurnished to the following parties via U. S. Mail and facsimile this /.?L!:::day ofMay, 2011: 

### ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building- Suite 2W1000 

### ONE COPY Gerald Ellis, Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Southern Region Federal AviationAdministration POBox20636 Atlanta, GA 30230 FAX: 404-305-5223 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, ChiefAdministrative LawJudge U. S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 FAX: 202-366-7536
§ 1214.602 Policy. *Premise.* Mementos are welcome aboard NASA missions. However, they are flown as a courtesy—not as an entitlement. All mementos must be approved by the Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations and are stowed only in an Official Flight Kit (OFK) or Personal Preference Kit (PPK). ( a ) *Economic gain.* Items carried in an OFK or a PPK will not be sold, transferred for sale, used or transferred for personal gain, or used or transferred for any commercial or fund-raising purpose. Items such as philatelic materials and coins that, by their nature, lend themselves to exploitation by the recipients, or create problems with respect to good taste; or that are large, bulky, or heavy items will not be approved for flight.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### In re TIMBERS OF INWOOD FOREST ASSOCIATES, LTD., Debtors. UNITED SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS, Movant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. TIMBERS OF INWOOD FOREST ASSOCIATES, LTD., Respondent-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.

No. 85-2678.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 9, 1986.

Leonard H. Simon, Daphne L. Levey, Tim Henderson, Houston, Tex., for respondent-appellant cross-appellee.

H. Miles Cohn, Houston, Tex., for movant-appellee cross-appellant.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, RANDALL, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, HILL, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

By the Court:

A majority of the Judges in active service, on the Court’s own motion, having *778determined to have this case reheard en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the Court en banc with oral argument. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
#### MORRIS’S ADMINISTRATOR v. BILLS.

Witness — heir not for estate — trover—conversion—attorney.

An heir entitled to a distributive share of the estate, is incompetent as a witness for the administrator, unless the estate is insolvent.

Where property has been placed in the hands of the defendant, by those having the legal custody of it, trover cannot be maintained, without proof of actual conversion, or a demand and refusal.

If evidence has been omitted by mistake, the Supreme Court, to avoid a new suit or new trial, will allow it to be introduced after the evidence is closed.

An attorney, to whom a portion of the recovery is assigned, is an incompetent witness for the claim.

*Trover for*a wagon and horses, and sundry other property. It appeared in evidence, that the articles were delivered by the intestate to John Town, in part of a contract for land, and Morris left in possession of them. Before Morris’s death, it had been agreed to cancel the contract. At the death, Town held the property as Morris’s agent. After the death, by an arrangement with, the widow and children of Morris and jBills, the property was made over to the defendant, to pay certain debts, and were by the heirs placed on his premises. The administrator of Morris brought this suit, after the letters of administration were ordered by the court, but before they, in fact, issued, and without demanding the goods.

In the progress of the trial, the plaintiff called William Morris, the son, and one of the heirs of the intestate, as a witness.

The defendant objected that he was interested.

Boalt, for the defendant,

moved for a non suit, because there was no evidence of a conversion by the defendant. The property was put in the defendant’s fields, by those having the custody of it, and there is no evidence of his using it as his own, or of a demand and refusal.

O. *Parish,,*

offered to supply the evidence; it had been omitted by mistake.

Boalt, objected.

*O.*Parish,

was then called as a witness.

*Boalt,*

objected, and proved that the interest of the widow and heirs in this suit, in the estate of Morris, had been assigned to the *344witness and the administrator, to secure certain fees due, and the proceeds of the suit were, in fact, coming to the witness.

*343By the Court.

The witness is entitled to a distributive share of the estate, and unless it is admitted to be insolvent, the recovery would put money in his pocket; he is inadmissible.

By the Court. This is a court of dernier resort, and we are in the constant habit, where justice requires it, to relax our rules, where mistakes have occurred, in order to avoid new trials. You can give the evidence.

*344By the Court. The witness is clearly inadmissible.

The plaintiff having no other evidence, then submitted to a non suit, and the jury were discharged.