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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-11104 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAYMUNDO DIAZ CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-3-5-C

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Raymundo Diaz Cruz appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for distribution of less than 500 grams of cocaine. He argues that the district court abused its authority by imposing his sentence for the instant offense to run consecutively to his prior undischarged term of imprisonment. The Government asserts that Cruz’s challenge is barred by the waiver of his right to appeal, as set forth in his written plea bargain agreement. InNo. 04-11104 -2- reply, Cruz contends that his appeal is not barred because his sentence was imposed in violation of law. As Cruz has not challenged the validity of the waiver of his right to appeal, that waiver provision shall be enforced. See United States v. Sharpe , 193 F.3d 852, 871 (5th Cir. 1999). This court reviews de novo whether a waiver of appeal provision bars an appeal. United States v. Baymon , 312 F.3d 725, 727 (5th Cir. 2002). Although Cruz argues that this court may review his challenge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) because the sentence was imposed in violation of law, Cruz explicitly waived his right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 in his plea bargain agreement. Because Cruz’s challenge to his sentence is encompassed by the waiver of his right to appeal, this appeal is DISMISSED. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
exv10w1



 





EXHIBIT 10.1




JOINT REPORTING AGREEMENT




     In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, each of the parties hereto
represents to and agrees with the other parties as follows:



     1. Such party acknowledges that it is required and eligible to file a statement on Schedule
13G pertaining to the common stock of OYO Geospace Corporation, to which this agreement is an
exhibit, for the filing of the information contained therein.



     2. Such party is responsible for timely filing of such statement and any amendments thereto,
and for the completeness and accuracy of the information concerning such party contained therein;
provided that no such party is responsible for the completeness or accuracy of the information
concerning the other party making the filing, unless such party knows or has reason to believe that
such information is inaccurate.



     3. Such party agrees that such statement is filed by and on behalf of each such party and that
any amendment thereto will be filed on behalf of each such party.



     This agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to
be an original instrument, but all of such counterparts taken together shall constitute but one
agreement.


	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated:  April 28, 1999 	R. CHANEY & PARTNERS IV L.P.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	R. Chaney Investments, Inc.,
General Partner	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert H. Chaney 	 
	 	 	Robert H. Chaney, 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	R. CHANEY INVESTMENTS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert H. Chaney
 	 
	 	 	Robert H. Chaney, 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 





 









 





	 	 	 	 	 
	 	R. CHANEY & PARTNERS III L.P.	 
	 
	 	By:	 R. Chaney & Partners, Inc.,

General Partner	 
	 
	 	By:  	/s/ ROBERT H. CHANEY
 	 
	 	 	Robert H. Chaney, 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	R. CHANEY & PARTNERS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ ROBERT H. CHANEY
 	 
	 	 	Robert H. Chaney, 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	                                              /s/ ROBERT H. CHANEY
 	 
	 	Robert H. Chaney, 	 
	 	Sole Shareholder of R. Chaney & Partners, Inc. and

R. Chaney Investments, Inc.
**C H**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 509 CITY OF KALISPELL,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHELLE SQUIER RAVE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 19 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court January 17 2023

01/17/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0509
08/17/2005 

Administration on Aging (AoA)

FY 2005 Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP) Grant Awards for the States

FY Type Grantee Name Cash Allocation

2005 State Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Territory Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands

Total

$2,627,926

$310,987

$1,854,330

$2,178,522

$11,072,273

$1,176,147

$1,470,067

$468,888

$551,586

$10,002,339

$2,369,777

$537,489

$639,171

$6,122,411

$1,701,608

$1,977,225

$1,688,148

$1,895,223

$2,890,037

$607,856

$1,843,986

$3,531,560

$6,754,623

$2,164,696

$2,176,578

$4,020,595

$672,242

$1,275,630

$666,312

$832,413

$3,385,862

$1,667,326

$14,224,142

$3,054,117

$830,125

$5,218,223

$2,511,905

$1,413,325

$6,700,793

$691,896

$1,826,004

$958,577

$2,017,753

$9,204,255

$1,163,140

$494,539

$2,133,164

$1,831,400

$1,460,288

$3,156,653

$761,028

$264,595

$71,715

$2,292,515

$120,180

$143,534,165
**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 Annual Report of First Ottawa Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Joachim J. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/  Joachim J. Brown    |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
|                     |   |   |
|                     |   |   |
| Joachim J. Brown         |   |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |   |
| March 25,  2008     |   |   |

 

----
§ 143.207 Requirements for foreign MODUs. Each mobile offshore drilling unit that is documented under the laws of a foreign nation must, when engaged in OCS activities, comply with one of the following: ( a ) The design and equipment standards of 46 CFR part 108.
( b ) The design and equipment standards of the documenting nation if the standards provide a level of safety generally equivalent to or greater than that provided under 46 CFR part 108.
( c ) The design and equipment standards for mobile offshore drilling units contained in the International Maritime Organization (IMO, formerly Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization or IMCO) (IMO) Code for Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (IMO Assembly Resolution A.414(XI)) which has been incorporated by reference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4612

LEWIS GENE BENNETT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-61)

Submitted: December 4, 2001

Decided: December 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Lewis Gene Bennett, Jr. appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to one count of passing and uttering counterfeit

currency and one count of possession of counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 472 (West 2000). He was sentenced to one year

and one day in prison and three years of supervised release on each

count, to run concurrently, and $440 in restitution. 

Bennett argues the district court erred when it applied U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B5.1(b)(2) (2000) to enhance his sentence. Section 2B5.1(b)(2) provides for an offense level enhancement

for a defendant who manufactured or produced counterfeit currency

or possessed devices or materials used to counterfeit currency. This

guideline, however, "does not apply to persons who merely photocopy notes or otherwise produce items that are so obviously counterfeit that they are unlikely to be accepted even if subjected to only

minimal scrutiny." USSG § 2B5.1(b)(2), comment. (n.4); see United

States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 76 (4th Cir. 1996). 

We review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and

findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Williams, 253 F.3d

789, 791-92 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and

joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

Bennett’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. BENNETT
<PAGE>   1

                               Form 10-Q, Part II
                                     Item 6
                                   Exhibit 99


                       INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT
                       -----------------------------------

The Board of Directors
The Tranzonic Companies:

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of The Tranzonic
Companies and subsidiaries as of May 31, 1997, and the related condensed
consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows for the three-month periods
ended May 31, 1997 and 1996. These condensed consolidated financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical review procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of The Tranzonic Companies and
subsidiaries as of February 28, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein); and in our report dated March 31, 1997, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of February 28, 1997, is fairly presented, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

/s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
June 25, 1997
###### Editorial Note on Part 149

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 149 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 149.402 What firefighting and fire protection equipment must be approved by the Coast Guard?

Except as permitted under § 149.403, § 149.415(c) or (d), § 149.419(a)(1), or § 149.420 of this part, all required firefighting and fire protection equipment on a deepwater port must be approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG). Firefighting and fire protection equipment that supplements required equipment must also be approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG), unless approval by the Officer in Charge of Marine Inspection (OCMI) is requested and granted pursuant to § 149.403 of this subpart.

[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39179, July 1, 2013]
§ 155.820 Records. The vessel operator shall keep a written record available for inspection by the COTP or OCMI of: ( a ) The name of each person currently designated as a person in charge of transfer operations.
( b ) The date and result of the most recent test and inspection of each item tested or inspected as required by § 156.170 of this chapter;
( c ) The hose information required by § 154.500(e) and (g) of this chapter unless that information is marked on the hose; and
( d ) The Declaration of Inspection as required by § 156.150(f) of this chapter.
[CGD 75-124, 45 FR 7175, Jan. 31, 1980, as amended by CGD 86-034, 55 FR 36255, Sept. 4, 1990]
<PAGE>

Litton Loan Servicing LP

February 20, 2004

As of and for the period ended December 31, 2003, Litton Loan
Servicing LP (the Company) has complied in all material respects
with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period,
Litton Loan Servicing LP had in effect a fidelity bond in the
amount of $20,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the
amount of $20,000,000.



/s/ Larry B. Litton, Sr.
-------------------------
Larry B. Litton, Sr.
President & CEO
February 20, 2004

/s/ Janice McClure
------------------
Janice McClure
Senior Vice President
February 20, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 619 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 619

 Expressing support for a constructive dialogue on human rights issues 
                 between the United States and Bahrain.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2008

  Mr. Sessions (for himself and Mr. Coleman) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for a constructive dialogue on human rights issues 
                 between the United States and Bahrain.

Whereas Bahrain is a friend of the United States and a critical partner in the 
        war on terrorism, as demonstrated by Bahrain's designation as a major 
        ally outside of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the completion 
        of the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement in 2006, and the 
        continued presence of United States forces in Bahrain;
Whereas the strategic relationship between the United States and Bahrain should 
        not prevent the United States from speaking honestly to the Government 
        of Bahrain about concerns regarding human rights issues in a mutually 
        respectful dialogue; and
Whereas numerous reports, including the Department of State's 2007 Country 
        Report on Human Rights Practices in Bahrain, detail potential 
        shortcomings by the Government of Bahrain in the areas of human rights 
        and democracy, including--

    (1) the use of torture and undue force against political activists;

    (2) systematic discrimination by the Sunni government against the Shi'a 
majority, including forbidding Shi'a from joining the military and 
discriminating against Shi'a in public sector employment;

    (3) the denial, in practice, of the right to a fair trial; and

    (4) gerrymandering of political districts in order to support favored 
candidates: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) supports a constructive dialogue on human rights issues 
        as an integral part of the bilateral agenda between the United 
        States and Bahrain;
            (2) expresses support for efforts to promote human rights, 
        democracy, and the rule of law in Bahrain; and
            (3) calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to 
        aid in those efforts.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 150

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 150.603 What emergency response training is required?

The requirements for emergency response training must be outlined in the deepwater port operations manual.

[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39183, July 1, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 157
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 157.170 COW equipment: Removal. ( a ) Whenever a deck mounted COW machine is removed from the tank, the master shall ensure that: ( 1 ) The supply piping to that machine is blanked off; and
( 2 ) The tank opening is sealed by a secured plate made of steel or an equivalent material accepted by the Commandant.
( b ) If the equipment for the COW system is removed from a cargo tank for the carriage of cargoes other than crude oil and then reinstalled, the master shall ensure that, before COW operations are conducted, the system has no crude oil leakage.
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 ofMaverick Minerals Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Kinloch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 16th day of December, 2004.



|                                                    | /s/ Robert Kinloch
|--------------------------------------------------- | ------------------
|Robert Kinloch                                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer































---
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 Triad Hospitals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Shelton, 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:



(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/ James D. Shelton   
|James D. Shelton       
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 8, 2004       



This certification
shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 150
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 150 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 150.105 What are the requirements for annual self-inspection? ( a ) The owner or operator of each manned deepwater port must ensure that the deepwater port is regularly inspected to determine whether the facility is in compliance with the requirements of this subchapter. The inspection must be at intervals of no more than 12 months. The inspection may be conducted up to 2 months after its due date, but will be valid for only the 12 months following that due date.
( b ) The owner or operator must record and submit the results of the annual self-inspection to the Sector Commander, or to the MSU Commander, with COTP and OCMI authority within 30 days of completing the inspection. The report must include a description of any failure, and the scope of repairs made to components or equipment, in accordance with the requirements in subpart I of this part, other than primary lifesaving, firefighting, or transfer equipment, which are inspected and repaired in accordance with subpart F.
( c ) Prior to the initiation of a self-inspection plan, and before commencement of operations, the owner or operator must submit a proposal describing the self-inspection plan to the Sector Commander, or MSU Commander, with COTP and OCMI authority for acceptance. The plan must address all applicable requirements outlined in parts 149 and 150 of this subchapter.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39182, July 1, 2013]