alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40789 Conference Calendar

STANLEY T. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ORLANDO PEREZ; R. WALLACE; ANGLE, Ms.; GEORGE STEPHENSON; DAVID. M. BLACKWELL; DONALD J. HULSEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CV-20

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Stanley T. Alexander (#695814), a state prisoner, has appealed the magistrate judge’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous. Alexander contends that the district court dismissed his due process and retaliation claims prematurely. Alexander has no cognizable claim related to his custody classification. Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995);

see Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in determining thatNo. 98-40789 -2-

Alexander had failed to allege a chronology of events from which it could be inferred that the defendants were motivated to retaliate against him. See Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997); Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Alexander contends that the magistrate judge was biased against him. Adverse rulings alone do not call into question a judge’s impartiality. Liteky v. United States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). In the district court, Alexander contended that the defendants conspired against him, that Wallace was not properly trained and supervised, and that his right to equal protection had been violated. Alexander has abandoned these issues by failing to present any argument regarding them on appeal. See Applewhite v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc. , 67 F.3d 571, 573 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Alexander that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
§ 27.141 General. The rotorcraft must— ( a ) Except as specifically required in the applicable section, meet the flight characteristics requirements of this subpart— ( 1 ) At the altitudes and temperatures expected in operation;
( 2 ) Under any critical loading condition within the range of weights and centers of gravity for which certification is requested;
( 3 ) For power-on operations, under any condition of speed, power, and rotor r.p.m. for which certification is requested; and
( 4 ) For power-off operations, under any condition of speed and rotor r.p.m. for which certification is requested that is attainable with the controls rigged in accordance with the approved rigging instructions and tolerances;
( b ) Be able to maintain any required flight condition and make a smooth transition from any flight condition to any other flight condition without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without danger of exceeding the limit load factor under any operating condition probable for the type, including— ( 1 ) Sudden failure of one engine, for multiengine rotorcraft meeting Transport Category A engine isolation requirements of Part 29 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Sudden, complete power failure for other rotorcraft; and
( 3 ) Sudden, complete control system failures specified in § 27.695 of this part; and
( c ) Have any additional characteristic required for night or instrument operation, if certification for those kinds of operation is requested. Requirements for helicopter instrument flight are contained in appendix B of this part.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-2, 33 FR 962, Jan. 26, 1968; Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55468, Dec. 20, 1976; Amdt. 27-19, 48 FR 4389, Jan. 31, 1983; Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44433, Nov. 6, 1984]
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.123 Re-use of Special Tariff Permission when tariff is rejected.

If a tariff containing matter issued under Special Tariff Permission is rejected, the same Special Tariff Permission may be used in a tariff issued in lieu of such rejected tariff provided that such re-use is not precluded by the terms of the Special Tariff Permission, and is made within the time limit thereof or within seven days after the date of the Department's notice of rejection, whichever is later, but in no event later than fifteen days after the expiration of the time limit specified in the Special Tariff Permission.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 163/2006

of 30 January 2006         

amending the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 27(5)(a) and (15) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 90/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 15, 20.1.2006, p. 32.

----

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 31 January 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

----

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

----
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Hometown Auto Retailers, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Charles F. Schwartz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Charles F. Schwartz
-----------------------
Charles F. Schwartz
Chief Financial Officer
March 24, 2004
Exhibit 99.3

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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016 (the
Report) by CGI Group Inc. (the Company), the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 his knowledge:



| |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
|- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.
|- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 21, 2016

| |  |  |  |  |  |                                                          
| |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ George D. Schindler                                  
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  |                                                          
| |  |  |  |  |  | George D. Schindler
President and Chief Executive
Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KAILEE DE LOS ANGELES

,

Appellant

,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2135

LT Case No. 2020

- CT

- 53321

- A

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed May 30, 2023

Appeal from the C ounty Court for Brevard County

, Aaron Peacock , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz , Public Defender,
and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant State Attorney, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY

, KILBANE and MACIVER , JJ., concur

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                           
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                              0000797917
<NAME>                             RAYTECH CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
   
<CASH>                             8,879 
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      35,381
<ALLOWANCES>                       900
<INVENTORY>                        30,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   82,804
<PP&E>                             156,722
<DEPRECIATION>                     90,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     174,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              68,671
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           5,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         55,988 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       174,432
<SALES>                            188,026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   188,026
<CGS>                              143,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      143,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    20,130 
<INCOME-TAX>                       5,653
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                13,224
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       13,224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      3.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.71



    

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 21

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this 21 see Amdt. 21-10, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 74 FR 53384, Oct. 16, 2009.

#### § 21.327 Application.

Any person may apply for an export airworthiness approval. Each applicant must apply in a form and manner prescribed by the FAA.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

**As of December 31, 2005**

 

GainesvilleBank & Trust, a Georgia banking corporation

 

UnitedBank & Trust, a Georgia banking corporation

 

CommunityTrust Bank, a Georgia banking corporation

 

HomeTown Bank ofVilla Rica, a Georgia banking corporation

 

GB&T Bancshares,Inc. Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut trust

 

FirstNational Bank of the South, a national banking corporation

 

GB&T Bancshares,Inc. Statutory Trust II, a Connecticut trust

 

SouthernHeritage Bancorp, Inc. Statutory Trust I, a Connecticut trust

 

FirstNational Bank of Gwinnett, a national banking corporation

 

----
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT (10)(a)

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



<PAGE>

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
in the Statement of Additional Information and to the use of our reports (1)
dated February 14, 2003 with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements
and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company and (2) dated January 31,
2003 with respect to the subaccounts of Separate Account VA L, which are
available for investment by contract owners of Transamerica Preferred Advantage
Variable Annuity, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-87792) and related Prospectus of Transamerica
Preferred Advantage Variable Annuity.

                                                       /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
April 25, 2003
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

-------------------------------------------------------------x

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

 as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al.

 Debtors.

1

-------------------------------------------------------------x

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sebastian V. Higgins, depose and say that I am employed by Prime Clerk LLC (“Prime 

Clerk”), the solicitation, claims and noticing agent for the Debtors in the above-captioned cases 

under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act 

(PROMESA).

On April 25, 2018, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Prime Clerk 

caused the following document to be served via First Class Mail on Centurylink 

Communications, LLC (QWEST) [MMLID:87322] 931 14th ST, Denver, CO, 80202-2994:

• Notice of Filing of Amended Schedule of Covered Governmental Agencies and 

Instrumentalities in Connection with the Utilities Order [Docket No. 2829]

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number and 

the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747) (Title III case numbers are listed as 

Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2981 Filed:04/30/18 Entered:04/30/18 17:02:10 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2981 Filed:04/30/18 Entered:04/30/18 17:02:10 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

d0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146389

ROYAL ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146389

COA: 301860

Genesee CC: 09

- 092311

- CZ

BRETT CASSIDY, ROBERT FROST,

and BLAKE HIBEN,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

NATE GUIGER,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 25, 2016

a0511

Order 

Clerk

May 25, 2016

149789(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149789

COA: 321499 

Berrien CC: 2011-016332-FC

BILLY JO ORRICK,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28, 

2015 order is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cases of People v 

Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849) and People v Masroor (Docket Nos. 152946-8) are 

pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve an 

issue raised in the present motion for reconsideration, we ORDER that the motion for 

reconsideration be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT OCTOB ER 3, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14324 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 5 8 - CR- SPM - W CS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H E L G O N Z A L O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 3, 2006) B e f o r e H U L L , M A R C U S a n d W I L S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M : M ic h a e l U f

f e rm a n , c o u rt- ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rM ic h e l G o n z a lo in th is2

di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e lla n t a n d f

ile d ab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED a nd G onz a l o’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd se nt ence s are A FFI R M ED .
#### § 253.10 Notice of contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions.

No carrier may impose any contract of carriage provision containing a choice-of-forum clause that attempts to preclude a passenger, or a person who purchases a ticket for air transportation on behalf of a passenger, from bringing a claim against a carrier in any court of competent jurisdiction, including a court within the jurisdiction of that passenger's residence in the United States (provided that the carrier does business within that jurisdiction).

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2010-0140, 76 FR 23163, Apr. 25, 2011]
§ 27.1321 Arrangement and visibility. ( a ) Each flight, navigation, and powerplant instrument for use by any pilot must be easily visible to him.
( b ) For each multiengine rotorcraft, identical powerplant instruments must be located so as to prevent confusion as to which engine each instrument relates.
( c ) Instrument panel vibration may not damage, or impair the readability or accuracy of, any instrument.
( d ) If a visual indicator is provided to indicate malfunction of an instrument, it must be effective under all probable cockpit lighting conditions.
(Secs. 313(a), 601, 603, 604, and 605 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1421, 1423, 1424, and 1425); and sec. 6(c) of the Dept. of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655(c)))
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964; 29 FR 17885, Dec. 17, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-13, 42 FR 36971, July 18, 1977]
§ 27.1147 Mixture controls. If there are mixture controls, each engine must have a separate control and the controls must be arranged to allow— ( a ) Separate control of each engine; and
( b ) Simultaneous control of all engines.
#### § 27.935 Shafting joints.

Each universal joint, slip joint, and other shafting joints whose lubrication is necessary for operation must have provision for lubrication.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL