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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-20170 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY LAMAR FAULK,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-871-2

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

October 17, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky Lamar Faulk appeals the sentence he received after he

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and

to obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1503(a)(b)(3) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. 

Faulk’s argument that the district court erred when it attributed

1.4 grams of methamphetamine to him without a finding of facts on

the record given that no drug amount was set forth in the
No. 02-20170

-2-

indictment fails because his sentence was within the statutory

maximum. United States v. Clinton, 256 F.3d 311, 314 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 492 (2001). Likewise, Faulk’s argument

that the district court did not comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 32

because it did not make fact findings on the quantity of drugs

attributable to Faulk fails because the district court expressly

adopted the Presentence Report which clearly set forth the basis

for the amount of drugs attributable to Faulk. United States v.

Duncan, 191 F.3d 575-76 (5th Cir. 1999).

Faulk’s motion to adopt the brief of his codefendant, Steve

Keel, is DENIED. The sentence imposed by the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Expanding Access to COVID-19 Vaccines via the Aging Network

FY 2021 One-Time Allocation

4/8/2021

State

Vaccine 

Access via 

Aging 

Network

Alabama $752,484

Alaska $250,000

Arizona $1,127,032

Arkansas $457,366

California $5,214,498

Colorado $764,861

Connecticut $562,656

Delaware $250,000

District of Columbia $250,000

Florida $3,794,713

Georgia $1,370,501

Hawaii $250,000

Idaho $256,671

Illinois $1,829,138

Indiana $971,560

Iowa $486,896

Kansas $422,995

Kentucky $669,387

Louisiana $666,493

Maine $251,158

Maryland $864,949

Massachusetts $1,041,850

Michigan $1,578,481

Minnesota $826,149

Mississippi $433,873

Missouri $942,111

Montana $250,000

Nebraska $277,021

Nevada $437,869

New Hampshire $250,000

New Jersey $1,321,351

New Mexico $323,568

New York $2,919,806

North Carolina $1,548,373

North Dakota $250,000

Ohio $1,826,478

Oklahoma $562,750

Oregon $667,117

Pennsylvania $2,112,887

Rhode Island $250,000

South Carolina $819,951

South Dakota $250,000

Tennessee $1,013,732

Texas $3,397,292

Utah $328,602

Vermont $250,000

Virginia $1,213,648

Washington $1,079,978

West Virginia $319,135

Wisconsin $911,076

Wyoming $250,000

American Samoa $31,250

Guam $125,000

Northern Mariana Islands $31,250

Puerto Rico $571,044

Virgin Islands $125,000

TOTAL $50,000,000
# Number of Persons 65+

# Marital Status

# Living Arrangements

# State Percent 65+

# State Increase 65+

# Pop by State

# Family Income

# Personal Income

# Poverty

# Employment

# Education

# Health Insurance

# Functioning
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                16,922
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        320,988
<ALLOWANCES>                          10,290
<INVENTORY>                           39,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     411,894
<PP&E>                             1,941,264
<DEPRECIATION>                       991,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,397,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                292,328
<BONDS>                              222,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              50,777
<OTHER-SE>                           689,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,397,179
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,514,330
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,397,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     6,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      109,547
<INCOME-TAX>                          43,360
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   66,187
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          66,187
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           1.32<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1.29<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC (IN COMPLIANCE WITH SFAS 128)
<F2>EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED (IN COMPLIANCE WITH SFAS 128)
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of T.L.C. and C.A.C., * From the County Court at

children, Law No. 2 of Ector County,

Trial Court No. CC2

- 3157

- PC

.

No. 11

- 13

- 00171

- CV * November 27, 2013

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, t he

judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### § 784.5 Basic support for interpretations.

The ultimate decisions on interpretations of the Act are made by the courts (*Mitchell* v. *Zachry,* 362 U.S. 310; *Kirschbaum* v. *Walling,* 316 U.S. 517). Court decisions supporting interpretations contained in this part are cited where it is believed they may be helpful. On matters which have not been determined by the courts, it is necessary for the Secretary of Labor and the Administrator to reach conclusions as to the meaning and the application of provisions of the law in order to carry out their responsibilities of administration and enforcement (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134). In order that these positions may be made known to persons who may be affected by them, official interpretations are issued by the Administrator on the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, as authorized by the Secretary (Reorganization Plan 6 of 1950, 64 Stat. 1263; Gen. Ord. 45 A, May 24, 1950; 15 FR 3290). As included in the regulations in this part, these interpretations are believed to express the intent of the law as reflected in its provisions and as construed by the courts and evidenced by its legislative history. References to pertinent legislative history are made in this part where it appears that they will contribute to a better understanding of the interpretations.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 8 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

\Alpha3\E\SENENR\sj8--enr.xml [file 1 of 1]

        S.J.Res.8

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen 
     regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other 
than Members of Congress, occurring because of the expiration of the 
term of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of Washington, is filled by the 
reappointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer, for a term of 6 years, 
effective December 22, 2007.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in her capacity as Chief Financial Officer of
Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based
on her knowledge:

     .    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          June 30, 2002 (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.

Dated:  August 14, 2002

                                                 /s/ Shari L. Walgren
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Shari L. Walgren
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this 10-Q Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for the
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### § 780.320 Nonlocal minors.

The exemption applies only to migrant or other than local hand harvest workers 16 years of age or under who do come within the scope of section 13(a)(6)(C) (application to all local hand harvest laborers who commute daily from their permanent residences). (See § 780.315.) A local youth under the prescribed age who commutes daily from his permanent residence to the farm to perform work is not exempt under section 13(a)(6)(D). The exemption may, however, be available for the specified minors who work for short periods of several days or weeks without returning daily to their homes on farms beyond commuting distances from their permanent homes.
#### § 126.25 Penalties for handling designated dangerous cargo without permit.

Handling, loading, discharging, or transporting any designated dangerous cargo without a permit, as provided under § 126.17, being in force, will subject persons responsible therefore to the civil or criminal penalties provided in 46 U.S.C. 70036.

[CGD 78-023, 44 FR 4643, Jan. 22, 1979, as amended by USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58279, Sept. 18, 2020]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0324

KALEB EDWARD DANIELS,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 14, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2022

08/08/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0324
----

**EXHIBIT 31.2**

Section 302 Certification of Principal Financial Officer 

I, Garry Wong, certify that: 

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dragon Pharmaceutical 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 quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's 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(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.

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

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's 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 registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

|                               |                         |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
| Date:  November 14, 2008 | /s/ Garry Wong          |
|                          | Garry Wong              |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer |

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1555. DONNIE FUSSELL v. THE STATE.

Donnie Fussell was convicted of rape. Following the denial of his motion for

new trial, Fussell appealed to this Court. We affirmed his conviction. See Case No.

A20A2122 (decided Feb. 16, 2021). Fussell later filed an extraordinary motion for

new trial, which the trial court denied. He then filed this direct appeal, but we lack

jurisdiction.

An appeal from an order denying or dismissing an extraordinary motion for

new trial must be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA

§ 5-6-35 (a) (7), (b); Davis v. State, 182 Ga. App. 736, 736-737 (356 SE2d 762)

(1987). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.”

Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). Fussell’s failure

to follow the discretionary appeal procedure deprives us of jurisdiction to consider

this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Davis, 182 Ga. App. at 736-737. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

June 28, 2022

06/28/2022
#### § 95.13 Debarment and suspension.

Recipients shall comply with the nonprocurement debarment and suspension common rule implementing E.O.'s 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension” codified by DOL at 2 CFR part 2998. This common rule restricts subawards and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities.

[59 FR 38271, July 27, 1994, as amended at 81 FR 25587, Apr. 29, 2016]
Record of Contact with Outside Party to discuss issues related to Rulemaking
AGENCY KEEPING RULEMAKING DOCKET: ETA
TI TL E OF RULE: **Federal**

**- State Unemployment Insurance (UI) Program; Data Exchange**  **Standardization as Required by Section 2104 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job**  **Creation Act of 2012** STAGE OF RULEMAKING: Comment anal ys is; final rulemaking Party (ies)/Title(s)/Organization(s) Present or Represented: 1) Gay Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Unemploy ment Insurance, U.S. Department of Labor, Emplo ym ent and Training Administration 2) Subri Raman, Chief, Division of Performance Management, Office of Unemploy ment Insurance, U.S. Department of Labor, Emplo ym ent and Training Administration 3) Demetra Nightingale, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy , U.S. Department of Labor 4) Michelle Rose, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor 5) Martha Frydl, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, Employ ment and Training Administration 6) Anne DeCesaro, Professional Staff Member, Human Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Way s and Means 7) Matt Weidinger, Staff Director and Senior Advisor, Human Resources Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means 8) Drew Way

ne, Legislative Assistant for Rep. Tom Re ed Date of Discussion: Friday , May 10, 2013 Nature of Discussion: in

- person meeting; House Way s and Means Committee office Description of factual materials or information presented: DOL staff presented the challenges of data exchange standardization and how OUI plans to move forward with the process of developing and implementing standardization. House of Representatives subcommittee staff appreciated the feedback and said that their comment (the only comment received on this rulemaking) did not require DOL to have to change the rulemaking. Moreover, the subcommittee staff indicated their receptivity to technical assistance on other methods to promote data ex ch ange standardization other than rulemaking that would still ensure the implementation and acco untability of data exchange standardization at DOL (and at other Federal agencies). Department of Labor Representatives Participating: See above.
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56630) pertaining to the 1991 Employee StockIncentive Plan, dated December 31, 1992;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56624) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Planfor Outside Directors, dated December 31, 1992;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56626) pertaining to the Marsh Supermarkets,Inc. 401(k) Plan, dated December 31, 1992;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-00917) pertaining to the 1991 Employee StockIncentive Plan, as amended, dated February 14, 1996;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64321) pertaining to the Outside DirectorsStock Plan, the Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan and the Executive StockPurchase Plan, dated September 25, 1998;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-64343) pertaining to the Marsh DeferredCompensation Plan, dated September 25, 1998;  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-43256) pertaining to the 1999 OutsideDirectors’ Stock Option Plan, dated August 8, 2000; and  **•** Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82908) pertaining to the Marsh Supermarkets,Inc. 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, dated February 15, 2002;of ourreport dated June 8, 2006, except for Note 14, as to whichthe date is June 28, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MarshSupermarkets, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 1, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPIndianapolis, Indiana
Deloitte & Touche (LOGO)

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 2801
One Independent Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5034
Telephone: (904) 665-1400
Facsimile: (904) 355-9104


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON
MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH
UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation and subsidiaries:

We have examined  management's  assertion about Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation
and  subsidiaries'  (the  "Company")   compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing
standards  identified in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform
Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1999, included in the accompanying management assertion.
Management  is  responsible  for the  Company's  compliance  with those  minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation and
subsidiaries complied with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of
and for the  fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  1999 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.



Deloitte & Touche

February 25, 2000


Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
[673 NE2d 1239, 651 NYS2d 12]

#### In the Matter of Ronald C. Robert.

Decided October 15, 1996

*1039OPINION OF THE COURT

. On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Ronald C. Robert is suspended with pay, effective immediately, from his office of Justice of the Chester Town Court, Warren County, pending disposition of his request for review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick.