alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41116

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO GARCIA-VALLEJO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-99-CR-366-1

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

June 15, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Garcia-Vallejo appeals the 77-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Garcia-Vallejo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue
No. 00-41116

-2-

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). GarciaVallejo’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements for the six months ended June 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,109
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                       523
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         298,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        273,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,174
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,407
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,660
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,811
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,811
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76





</TABLE>
10.6


 


Commitment Letter


 


 


Majority Shareholder Yong Xu hereby promises
to pay all the expenses Yinhang Internet Technologies Development Inc. incurred for its operations. Yinhang Internet Technologies
Development Inc. hereby promises to repay Yong Xu once it is profitable.


 


 


 


Yinhang Internet Technologies Development,
Inc.


 


Director’s Signature:


 


Date: June 10, 2012


 


 


Majority Shareholder’s Signature:


 


Date: June 10, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                                 1

<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                  MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                       0
<SECURITIES>                                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                             0
<PP&E>                                                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                               0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                        0
<BONDS>                                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                                 0
<SALES>                                                               3,273,495
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      3,777,181
<CGS>                                                                 3,144,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        111,234
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   (6,064,686)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (2,062,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         (4,002,686)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (4,002,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            (32.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            (32.98)


</TABLE>
#### Chevalier *vs*Commonwealth.

Error to the Jefferson Circuit.

Presentment.

*Case*86.

*June*7.

*Retailing spirits, malt ancl fermented liquors.*

statute of ’t is a penal difence to *spiritous, iit or fermented. liquors*by the quart or less than gt¡uart, or more than a quart, in the cityofLouisviile, where it is diank in the house of the vendor.

No conviction can take place upon a presentment, unless for Die particular of-fence charged..

Judge Simpson

delivered tlie opinion of the Court.

The act of 1838, to amend the charter of the city of Louisville, *(Sess. Acts, page*55,) imposes a penalty upon any person who shall sell by retail, in any quantity less than a quart, any spirituous, malt or fermented liquor in said city, without license of the Council.

By an act passed in 1839, *(Sess. Acts,*ngf'e act of 1838 is so amended that no personas" under a similar penalty, to sell by retail any spiritous, malt or fermented liquor, byI less than a quart, or more than a quart, w^enj the house, without a license from the Count

These statutes are entirely consistent with ea&folher, and specify two distinct offences against the laws of the city. One offence consists in selljng by retail, any quantity less than a quart, without a license; the other consists in selling any quantity whatever, where it is drank in the house of the person selling it, whether it be more or less than a quart, without having obtained a license for that purpose.

The presentment in the present case, is for a violation of the latter statute. The offence charged, is a sale by the defendant of spiritous, malt and fermented liquors, by retail, in quantities of a quart, more than a quart, and less than a quart, which was drank in the house of the defendant, in the city of Louisville. The proof tended to establish a violation of the former statute, but there was no testimony conducing to prove that the liquor sold had been drank in the house of the defendant, so as to bring it under the latter statute. The evidence, therefore, did not support,the presentment ; and although the defendant may have been guilty of the violation of another statute, that did not au*380thorize a conviction under this presentment, for an entirely different and distinct offence.

*Thruston and Pope*for plaintiff; *Cates, Attorney General,*for Commonwealth.

The Court erred, therefore, in refusing to instruct the jury, it was incumbent on the Commonwealth to prove that the liquor sold by-the defendant- had been drank in his house.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for a new trial, and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13940]



[[Page 35648]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Incidence of Needlestick and Sharps Injuries and 
Medical Safety Device Availability/Use Among Non-Hospital Health Care 
Workers, RFA-OH-00-004

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.

    Name: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control 
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Incidence of Needlestick and Sharps 
Injuries and Medical Safety Device Availability/Use Among Non-
Hospital Health Care Workers, RFA-OH-00-004.
    Times and Date: 8 a.m.-8:30 a.m., July 25, 2000 (Open); 8:30 
a.m.-4:30 p.m., July 25, 2000 (Closed).
    Place: Embassy Suites, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, Virginia 
22314.
    Status: Portions of the meeting will be closed to the public in 
accordance with provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(4) and (6), 
Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Associate Director for 
Management and Operations, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
RFA-OH-00-004
    Contact Person for More Information: Price Connor, Ph.D., 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1600 
Clifton Road, NE., m/s D30 Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 404/
639-2383, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c6f6c7f2f5c7f787f327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cab9baa9f98aa9aea9e4ada5bc">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: May 30, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention CDC.
[FR Doc. 00-13940 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
----- Original Message

----- From: bluram@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 7:01 AM To: Webmaster EERE Subject: EERE Customer Email from bluram@gmail.com

Dear Assistant Secretary Danielson

I am writing to urge you to withdraw your office's proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces regulation (Docket Number EERE

- 2014

- BT

- STD

- 0031

- 0032).

This rule would place an unnecessary and costly burden on Americ ans. It effectively bans 58 percent of the natural gas furnaces currently on the market and could cost up to $2,500 to purchase and install.

Further, not only are there high installation costs but installation in some homes might be impossible, forcing co nsumers to switch to electric furnaces. According to the American Gas Association, households with natural gas appliances save $693 per year on average compared to households that use all

- electric appliances.

Lastly, only 34 percent of all affected househ olds are projected to see a net benefit from this rule according to analysis by the Department of Energy. Your unnecessary proposed regulation threatens access to affordable and reliable heat to the homes of average Americans.

The fact of the matter is th at natural gas is a clean, effective and cost

- efficient way of bringing heat to millions of Americans. This is why I urge you to withdraw this costly and unnecessary regulation.

Don Meyers

- Concerned Citizen
§ 146.210 Emergency Evacuation Plan. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the requirements applicable to Emergency Evacuation Plans (EEPs) on manned OCS facilities under § 146.140 are applicable to MODUs.
( b ) An EEP must be submitted by— ( 1 ) The holder of a lease or permit under the Act for each MODU within the area of the lease or the area covered by the permit; or
( 2 ) The operator under 30 CFR 250.2(gg), if other than the holder of a lease or permit, for each MODU within the area in which the operator controls or manages operations.
( c ) To avoid unnecessary duplication, the EEP may incorporate by reference pertinent sections of the MODU's operating manual required by 46 CFR 109.121.
( d ) In complying with § 146.140(d)(7), the EEP must designate the master or person in charge of the MODU under 46 CFR 109.107 as the individual who is assigned primary responsibility for implementing the EEP, as it relates to that MODU.
[CGD 84-098b, 54 FR 21573, May 18, 1989]
#### § 779.200 Coverage expanded by 1961 and 1966 amendments.

The 1961 amendments for the first time since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 provided that all employees in a particular business unit are covered by the Act. Prior to the 1961 amendments each employee's coverage depended on whether that employee's activities were in commerce or constituted the production of goods for commerce. All employees employed in an “enterprise” described in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the Act as it was amended in 1961 and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the Act as amended in 1966 are also covered. Thus, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the term “enterprise” as used in the Act.
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



The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SERENA Software, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2005 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Mark E. Woodward, Chief Executive Officer of SERENA Software, Inc. certify that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of SERENA Software, Inc.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    MARK E. WOODWARDMark E. Woodward President and Chief Executive Officer And Director




Date: September 9, 2005
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 29, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Don E.
Marsh, Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/  Don E. Marsh
-----------------
Don E. Marsh
Chief Executive Officer
June 27, 2003

      A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO MARSH SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY MARSH
SUPERMARKETS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
§ 127.503 Training: General. The operator shall ensure that each of the following is met: ( a ) All full-time employees have training in the following subjects: ( 1 ) Basic LNG firefighting procedures.
( 2 ) LNG properties and hazards.
( b ) In addition to the training under paragraph (a) of this section, each person assigned for transfer operations has training in the following subjects: ( 1 ) The examined *Operations Manual* and examined *Emergency Manual.*
( 2 ) Advanced LNG firefighting procedures.
( 3 ) Security violations.
( 4 ) LNG vessel design and cargo transfer operations.
( 5 ) LNG release response procedures.
( 6 ) First aid procedures for— ( i ) Frostbite;
( ii ) Burns;
( iii ) Cardio-pulminary resuscitation; and
( iv ) Transporting injured personnel.
( c ) The personnel who received training under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section receive refresher training in the same subjects at least once every five years.
Merrimack

No. 6906

#### State of New Hampshire v. Robert Breest

September 30, 1975

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Thomas D. Rath,*assistant attorney general *(Mr. Rath*orally), for the State.

*505
      *McSwiney, Jones & Semple (Mr. Paul C. Semple*orally) for the defendant.

Grimes, J.

The issues raised by the defendant are whether he was prejudiced by having a state’s witness claim the privilege against self-incrimination before the jury and then testify under a grant of immunity and whether the prosecutor’s argument to the jury denied him a fair trial.

Defendant was tried before a jury after being indicted for burglary. He was found guilty and his exceptions were transferred by *Keller,*C.J.

During the course of the trial, a witness for the State claimed the privilege against self-incrimination before the jury. During a recess and in the absence of the jury, the witness was granted immunity under RSA 516:34 (Supp. 1973) and then testified before the jury and was cross-examined by defense counsel. Defendant claims that by putting the witness on the stand before the jury, knowing he would claim the privilege, and then having him testify under a grant, of immunity so increased the impact and credibility of the witness as to prejudice defendant’s right to a fair trial.

This is not a case where the prosecution knowingly had the witness claim the privilege before the jury and then dismissed the witness, leaving an inference with the jury in a form not subject to cross-examination. *See Douglas v. Alabama,*380 U.S. 415 (1965). Here the witness did testify and was subject to cross-examination. There was no denial of the right to confrontation.

Although the better practice in cases such as this might be to have the witness claim the privilege in the absence of thejury, we need not decide in this case whether the defendant was prejudiced by the procedure followed at his trial. Not only were there no objections made, but the procedure was discussed beforehand and agreed to by defendant’s trial counsel. He cannot, therefore, now be heard to complain.

The defendant complains about the prosecutor’s argument, which contained expressions of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the defendant and the credibility of witnesses. *See*Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 766 (1956); ABA Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function and The Defense Function, Part I § 5.8 (Tent. Draft 1970). However, the record reveals no objection to that portion of the argument he now complains about. Not having objected at a time when the argument, if improper, could have been stopped or nullified by the court, he has waived any right to have it considered *506here. *State v. Blake,*113 N.H. 115, 305 A.2d 300 (1973); *State v. O’Brien,*114 N.H. 233, 317 A.2d 783 (1974).

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.