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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 19, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41582

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMAS NMI SANCHEZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-298-1

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tomas Nmi Sanchez-Medina appeals his 50-month sentence

following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien

unlawfully found in the United States following deportation after

having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez asserts that the district

court plainly erred in assigning him three criminal history

points for his prior conviction for evading arrest. He further

maintains that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) are
No. 02-41582

-2-

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). 

Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) and United States v. Moore, 997

F.2d 30, 33 (5th Cir. 1993), Sanchez’s 2000 evading arrest

conviction arguably should not have been counted for purposes of

his criminal history score. However, because the district court

could, on remand, impose the same 50-month sentence, Sanchez

fails to demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by

the district court’s error in calculating his criminal history

category. United States v. Wheeler, 322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir.

2003); United States v. Leonard, 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir.

1998). Consequently, Sanchez fails to satisfy the plain error

standard of review. Id.

Although Sanchez urges us to adopt the reasoning of the

Third Circuit as set forth in United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d

203 (3d Cir. 2001), it is the firm rule of this circuit that one

panel may not overrule the decisions of another without en banc

consideration or an intervening Supreme Court opinion. See Hogue

v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir. 1997). Neither condition

is present in this case. Thus, Sanchez is not entitled to any

relief, as set forth in Leonard and its progeny.

Sanchez concedes that his challenge to the constitutionality

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi
No. 02-41582

-3-

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). This court must follow the precedent set in

Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     and Chief Financial Officer 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 American Biltrite Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Roger S.
Marcus, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Howard N. Feist III, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

      (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/ Roger S. Marcus
-------------------
Name:  Roger S. Marcus
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  August 13, 2003


/s/ Howard N. Feist III
-----------------------
Name:  Howard N. Feist III
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  August 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Biltrite Inc. and will be retained by American Biltrite
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 11-8686.

#### Yon *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit








FIRST AMENDMENT 
TO
INVESTOR RIGHTS AND STANDSTILL AGREEMENT




This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INVESTOR RIGHTS AND STANDSTILL AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of January 31, 2017 is entered into by and among (i) Legg Mason, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and (ii) Shanda Asset Management Investment Limited, a company organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands (the “Investor”).  Each of the Company and the Investor is referred to herein as a “party” and together, the “parties.”
RECITALS
A. The parties entered into certain Investor Rights and Standstill Agreement dated as of December 19, 2016 (the “IRSA”).  
B. The parties desire to amend the IRSA by deleting Section 2.1(l) thereof in its entirety, with such amendment to become effective as of the date hereof.


AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
1. Amendment to the IRSA.  Section 2.1(l) of the IRSA is hereby deleted in its entirety.  Further, for the avoidance of doubt, all references in the IRSA to Section 2.1(l) thereof are accordingly deleted.
2. Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first written above. 
3. Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the same document.
4. No Other Amendments.  Except as amended herein, all of the terms and conditions of the IRSA shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. 
5. Governing Law.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of New York, without regard to any conflict of laws provisions thereof. 
[Signature Page Follows]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Amendment, or caused the same to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the date first above written.


LEGG MASON, INC.
By: /s/ Joseph A. Sullivan
Name: Joseph A. Sullivan
Title:    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


SHANDA ASSET MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT LIMITED
By: /s/ Tianqiao Chen
Name: Tianqiao Chen 
Title: Director
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Charles Ellis Shirley, Appellant

No. 06

- 16

- 00089

- CV v.

Warden Tovi Butcher and The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Appellee s Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Te xas (Tr. Ct. No. CV

- 16

- 42887 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the cou rt

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Charles Ellis Shirley, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 27, 2017
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Alpine Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Steven S. Elbaum, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|Date: May 15, 2003 |  | /s/STEVEN S. ELBAUMSteven S. Elbaum Chief Executive
Officer
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Holman, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 549]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 27, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to object to the reasons proffered by the prosecutor for peremptorily challenging three prospective black jurors. Thus, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that those reasons were pretextual *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Cruz,*200 AD2d 581; *People v Bowman,*185 AD2d 891). In any event, we find no basis in the record for disturbing the trial court’s determination that the reasons proffered by the prosecutor were racially neutral *(see, Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79; *People v Hernandez, 75*NY2d 350, *affd 500 US 852; People v Smith,*192 AD2d 628).

*489The sentence is not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Extension to Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension to public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public that the comment period for the 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision--
Environmental Impact Statement for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge 
Complex is extended.

DATES: The comment period has been extended to August 12, 2000. 
Comments will be considered during the preparation of the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement.

ADDRESSES: Address comments and requests for more information to: 
Refuge Manager, Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex, P.O. Box 
1236, Fallon, NV 89406.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Hanson, Refuge Manager, Stillwater 
National Wildlife Refuge Complex (775) 423-5128.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
published in the Federal Register of April 14, 2000 (Vol. 65, No. 73), 
that comments to the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Boundary Revision draft 
Environmental Impact Statement were to be received on or before June 
12, 2000. In response to public interest, the Service has granted two 
separate 30 day extensions to the public comment period.

    Dated: June 16, 2000.
Elizabeth H. Stevens,
Acting CA/NV Operations Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-15892 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### § 101-30.103 Responsibilities.
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 6, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00667

- CR

Raymo nd Sandoval GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 383282

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

In light of the opinion in Taylor v. State , No. PD

- 0180

- 13

, 2014 WL 440990 (Tex. Crim.

App. Feb. 5, 2014), we withdraw the opinion and order we issued in this appeal on January 8,

2013, and reinstate the appeal on the docket of this court.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Munawar Hidayatallah, certify that:          1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Allis-Chalmers Energy Inc.;          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;          4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:               (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;               (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;               (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and          5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:               (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                      *Date: November 8 , 2006* *By* */s/ Munawar H. Hidayatallah*          *Munawar H. Hidayatallah*    *Chief Executive Officer and*    *Chairman*
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Add the work hours, paris cos/, and number<?( U.S. registered products to the /able belmv. When you are 

.finished. click on the ·'Update Fields ,. but/on to auwmatical~vfill in the totals. 

Update Fields .J 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection IA W Figure 84 ~ 

$7 .l-.lO.i ( 1471 o. "io'"" o-1o 

I ofSB (J .00 

Inspection IA W Figure 65 '.::; '-s::: <; ( : '5.00 42 S.?. ~~: 050.\J 2 ofSB I 

( () , G~l 0 00 

0.0 ) I} 01 , ' 0.00 

(i.J .;, O.Oil ' ' {i!J 

l)j (I 0(1 ~ 0 f),) 

" 0 .1)\; <, l) ()I) ) (U)O 

$ (>.\).• 'n r).O!) s 0.00 

:£ {).UP (I 0 (1 -:. n oo 

\) ()•' o.ou (J.OO 

t ) no r) Or) 0.00 

!) 1)1 o--;:;o 0 (J{l 

'· f) ( \, ( .0(1 ' 0 !}(; 

'· t) G '}, I) 01) 0.00 

$ () _(), :; n no .., () 00 

s I} (l I '> (! 0(1 ~ (}J}O 

00 •' IJ .()!) s 0.00 

) Oc I} ()I) ... 0.00 

() (l Tt ()(l (l 1)0 

0 OJ ' (; l lU)O 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $10,734,990 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) 0$ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

Action (include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close- replacement) uo) 

"· 0 1)1 -.; n. f;<) 

> (1.0!1 'io ll ()tl 

") O.•Hl \ 1! Ot 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? . 

YES* 0 NO ~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? • 

YES* 0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer . • 

YES 0 NO ~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

• aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ""'--"" 

YES* 0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
From: gthomas@bp.Guardian.com
To: Hancy, Cindy Wang Subject: Re: US EPA - ICR Response
Date: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:58:10 PM

Ms. Hancy, in addition to the ICR data you are referencing, we also provided Susan Fairchild with detailed drawings of each Guardian furnace with a table on each drawing showing the chemical composition of all the refractory components including Cr2O3.

So, I am confirming with this email that the chromium percentages refers to Cr2O3.

Kind regards,

Grover Thomas

From: "Hancy, Cindy Wang" <chancy@rti.org>

To: <gthomas@bp.Guardian.com>

Date: 07/13/2012 12:39 PM

Subject: US EPA - ICR Response

Mr. Thomas,

I’m with RTI and I am assisting Susan Fairchild with the Wool Fiberglass NESHAP. I was reviewing Guardian’s confidential responses to the last ICR and I wanted to confirm that the chromium percentages listed for the different sections of the furnaces refer to percentages of Cr2O3. Most facilities responded with “% Cr2O3”, but Guardian just listed a percentage with no other detail. Could you please confirm this?

Thanks, Cindy Wang Hancy RTI International P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone: (919) 541-6623 Fax: (919) 316-3420
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 736

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 11, 1999

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DAVIS-BACON ACT.

4 (a) REPEAL.—The Act of March 3, 1931 (40 U.S.C.

5 276a et seq.) (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon

6 Act) is repealed.

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law to a

8 wage requirement of the Act of March 3, 1931, shall after

9 the date of the enactment of this Act be null and void.
2

•HR 736 IH

1 SEC. 2. COPELAND ACT.

2 Section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C.

3 276c) (commonly referred to as the ‘‘Copeland Act’’) is

4 repealed.

5 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 shall take

7 effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act

8 but shall not affect any contract in existence on such date

9 of enactment or made pursuant to invitation for bids out10 standing on such date of enactment.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPT. 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,387
<PP&E>                                           6,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,316
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,312
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,477
<SALES>                                         31,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,529
<CGS>                                           23,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (368)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    290
<INCOME-TAX>                                       108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                182
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       182
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
# Comments on: 23-110: In Re KERR [ORDER], Nonprecedential