alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10837 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Selvin Leonell Hernandez,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 401

- 1

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Selvin Leonell Hernandez appeals his convictions on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hernandez contends that the district court plainly erred by accepting his guilty pleas absent evidence that he personal ly moved a firearm in interstate

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be pub lished and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 1, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10837 Document: 00515805290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2021No. 20

- 10837

2 commerce or that a firearm was moved in interstate commerce in the recent past, which he argues are required elements of a § 922(g)(1) offense. He concedes that his challenge to his conviction s is foreclosed by United Stat es v. Fitzhugh , 984 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1993), in which we held that “ a convicted felon ’ s possession of a firearm having a past connection to interstate commerce violates § 922(g)(1 )

. ” But he argues that Fitzhugh was abrogated by the Supreme Court’s d ecision in United States v. Bond , 572 U.S. 844 (2014). Relying on Fitzhugh , the G overnment moves for summary
affirmance , agreeing with Hernandez that his appeal of the factual basis of his guilty pleas is foreclosed. Alternatively, the G overnment moves f or an extension of time to file a merits brief.
Neither party cites, nor are we are of, any published authority addressing Bond ’s effect on the interpretation of § 922(g)(1). Because it

cannot therefore be said that the G overnment’s position is “ clearly r ight as a
matter of law ,” summary affirmance is inappropriate in this case, and we deny the G overnment’s motion for summary affirmance

. Groendyke Transp.,
Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. Nonetheless, finding no plain error , we affirm t he judgment without the need for further briefing

. See generally Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Trejo , 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). The absence of binding authority discussing Bond ’s effect on § 922(g)’s federal
nexus element renders the question of error in this case, at best, subject to reasonable dispute. See Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. “By definition, that is not plain error.” United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 550 (5th Cir. 2012).

The G overnment’s motion for summary affirmance and its alternative
motion for an extension of time are each **DENIED** . The judgment is
**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10837 Document: 00515805290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2021
##### 



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 amendment to
the Annual Report of CanWest Global Communications Corp.
(the Company) on Form 40-F/A for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Leonard Asper, President and 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 result of
operations of the Company.

| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Leonard Asper                    
| |  |                                      
| |  | Leonard Asper                        
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | June 18, 2003                        

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to CanWest Global
Communications Corp. and will be retained by CanWest Global
Communications Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1702 Scope.

This subpart applies to filings required by §§ 76.403, 76.1610, 76.1801, 76.1803, & 76.1804, and 78.11 through 78.36 of this chapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                        79
<INVENTORY>                                      4,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,572
<PP&E>                                           1,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                     557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,362
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         19
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,421
<SALES>                                          4,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,514
<CGS>                                            3,517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    153
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                153
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       153
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.03


</TABLE>
Appendix B: 

Reinitiation of Formal Consultation on the Containment Program for the 

Southern Sea Otter (1-8-99-FW-81)
This page intentionally left blank.
Exhibit
13.2






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. § 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the annual report of Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jennifer Dawson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
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.












Date:
June 30, 2008




/s/       Jennifer
      DawsonJennifer
      DawsonTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer and Corporate
  Secretary
#### § 109-38.000 Scope of part.
|   | (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 as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:  | /s/ Michael J. Dee         |
|--------|-----------|----------------------------|
|   |      | Name:                      | Michael J. Dee |
|   |      | Title:                     | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |      |                       |   |
|   | By:  | /s/ William C. Wiedel, Jr. |
|   |      | Name:                 | William C. Wiedel, Jr. |
|   |      | Title:                     | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

----
No. 10-10896.

#### Maxwell *v.*White, Warden.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
MOMBASA DOUGLAS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3862

Opinion filed January 7, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Mombasa Douglas, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2002) (holding that where the trial court has issued a recent order to show cause on 

a pending pleading, mandamus relief is not warranted).

BENTON, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Celulosa Arauco y Constitución S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 28, 2007



/s/ Matías DomeykoName:  Matías DomeykoTitle:    Chief Executive Officer


Date: June 28, 2007



/s/ Robinson TajmuchName:  Robinson TajmuchTitle:    Chief Accounting Officer
# Comments on: Limited CM/ECF Availability on Saturday, March 27, 2021
034A16

#### Edwin Beickert, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. J. Eric Pike, Charles E. Bayless, James R. Helvey III, Peter Pace, Daniel J. Sullivan, James L. Turner, Pioneer Parent Inc., Pioneer Merger Sub Inc., and Court Square Capital Partners and Pike Corporation

Pit’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Denied 02/08/2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRESTWOOD CAPITAL

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANDES INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 17219

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00600

- NVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2019

San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Andes Industries, Inc. (“Andes”) appeals the district court’s entry of

summary judgment in favor of Crestwood Capital Corporation (“Crestwood”)

,

ordering Andes to pay Crestwood the amou nt due on a note

. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo

, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom , 919 F.3d 1148, 1150

– 51

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAY 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

(9 th Cir. 2019), and we affirm. Because the parties are fami liar with the facts, we

omit them.

Andes argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has

outstanding claims that could be used to support a setoff defense. Even if this were

once true, we affirmed the dismissal of the claims Andes bases its setoff defense on

in Andes Industri es, Inc. v. Cheng Sun Lan, No. 17

- 17059 , 2019 WL 2152825 (9th

Cir. May 16, 2019). A potential setoff defense is therefore no barrier to the entry

of summary judgment.

Andes also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because it has

a viable fraud defense to the enforcement of the note. However, the district court

did not err in holding that this defense had been waived because Andes failed to

plead it in its answer. See Enlow v. Salem

- Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc. , 389 F.3d

802, 819 (9th Cir. 2004 ) (“Failure to plead an affirmative defense .

. . results in a

waiver of that defense.”).

Because these two arguments were the only grounds for reversing the district

court Andes asserts, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED

.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS’ CONSENT 

 

The Board of Directors 

Cotelligent, Inc.:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(Nos. 333-31914, 333-33312,333-67589, 333-3388 and 333-103978) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-53899 and 333-111550) on Form S-4 of Cotelligent, Inc., of our report dated April 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Cotelligent, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, which reportappears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Cotelligent, Inc. 

 

/s/ Rowbotham & Company LLP 

 

San Francisco, California 

April 14, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.9060 Amendments, waivers, and dismissals affecting spectrum leasing notifications and applications. ( a ) Notifications and applications regarding spectrum leasing arrangements may be amended in accordance with the policies, procedures, and standards applicable to applications as set forth in subpart F of this part (*see* §§ 1.927 and 1.929 of subpart F of this part).
( b ) The Commission may waive specific requirements of the rules affecting spectrum leasing arrangements and the use of leased spectrum, on its own motion or upon request, in accordance with the policies, procedures, and standards set forth in subpart F of this part (*see* § 1.925 of subpart F of this part).
( c ) Notifications and pending applications regarding spectrum leasing arrangements may be dismissed in accordance with the policies, procedures, and standards applicable to applications as set forth in subpart F of this part (*see* § 1.935 of subpart F of this part).
# Comments on: 20-2209: CUSTOMPLAY, LLC v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The court has considered amendments to Federal Circuit Rules of Practice 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 

24, 25, 25.1, 26, 26.1, 27, 28, 28.1, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32.1, 33, 

33.1, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 47.2, 47.3, 47.4, 47.5, 

47.7, 47.9, 47.10, 47.12, 50, 52, and 54, and the Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rules, following public notice and 

comment as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2071(b).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

These amendments are adopted effective July 1, 2020, 

and shall apply to all cases filed or pending on or after July 

1, 2020, to the extent practicable, unless otherwise ordered.

FOR THE COURT

June 16, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court.

Local Rules No. 20-01
018P16

#### State v. D’Marcus Delton Ballard

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-335)

Denied
No. 11-9469.

#### Rai *v.*Barclays Capital, Inc.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 302-9.200 When am I eligible for return transportation of a POV from my post of duty? You are eligible for POV transportation from your post of duty when: ( a ) You were transferred to a post of duty in the interest of the Government; and
( b ) You have a POV at the post of duty.
Dismiss ed and Opinion Filed October 7, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01275

- CV

TROY DON NORRELL , Appellant

V. RUTH CECELIA NORRELL , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- 2104

- FC3



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida

- Kipness

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is A ppellant Troy Don Norr ell’s motion to dismiss this appeal, which
states the parties have reached a settlement agreement. By telephone, the Clerk of this Court
requested a certificate of conference, but no certificate of conference has been filed. Appellant’s

motion to dismiss does not state that the parties have reached agreement with respect to appellate

costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1

. Nor does Appellant’s motion to dismiss attach a copy of the
settlement agreement.
More than ten days ha ve passed since the filing of the mo tion and no response has been
filed by Appellee Ruth Cecelia Norrell. We have not yet issued a decision. Pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 (a) (1), we grant Appellant’s motion and we dismiss this appeal.T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Pursu ant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(d), costs will be

taxed against Appellant. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).
Having dismissed the appeal at Appellant’s request, our mandate will issue forthwith.

181275F.P05 /Ken Molberg/ / KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TROY DON NORRELL, Appellant

No. 05

- 18

- 01275

- CV V.
RUTH CECELIA NORRELL, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Williamson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 14

- 2104

- FC3. Opinion delivered by Justice Molberg. Justices Bridges and Partida

- Kipness participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure, 42.1(d), it is ORDERED that Appellee RUTH CECELIA NORRELL recover her costs of this appeal from Appellant TROY DON NORRELL. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).
Judgment entered this 7 th day of Octo ber 2019.
#### § 105-74.115 Does this part affect the Federal contracts that I receive?

It will affect future contract awards indirectly if you are debarred or suspended for a violation of the requirements of this part, as described in § 105-74. 510(c). However, this part does not apply directly to procurement contracts. The portion of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 that applies to Federal procurement contracts is carried out through the Federal Acquisition Regulation in chapter 1 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations (the drug-free workplace coverage currently is in 48 CFR part 23, subpart 23.5).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1988: Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Oq357YBHiv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1988-vicentin-saic-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1988: Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1988-vicentin-saic-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=Oq357YBHiv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1988: Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Oq357YBHiv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Vicentin S.A.I.C. v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1988 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
#### § 128-1.8008 Exemptions.

The Executive Order exempts from the regulations in this subpart only those categories of buildings exempted by the “National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings.” The Department Seismic Safety Coordinator shall maintain the latest version of this document.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Year-to-Date Activity 

as of November 29, 2013

Court or Agency of Origin

Pending as of 

10/01/13

Docketed 

10/01/13 to date

Terminated 

10/01/13 to date

Currently 

Pending 

Boards of Contract Appeals 8 4 1 11

Court of Federal Claims 119 22 25 116

Court of International Trade 55 3 2 56

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 104 27 34 97

District Courts 438 89 58 469

Department of Justice 2 2 0 4

Department of Veterans Affairs 1 0 0 1

International Trade Commission 19 3 1 21

Merit Systems Protection Board 104 43 43 104

Office of Personnel Management 0 0 0 0

Office of Compliance 0 0 0 0

Patent & Trademark Office 118 28 32 114

Writs 15 10 8 17

TOTAL 983 231 204 1010