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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 6, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11276

Summary Calendar

CASSEL DIXON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COLE JETER, Warden, Federal Correctional

Institution Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-181

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cassel Dixon, federal prisoner # 12972-058, appeals from the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his

conviction for a drug conspiracy. The district court determined

that Dixon’s claims would be properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion and that Dixon could not proceed under § 2255’s savings

clause. 

Dixon, through counsel, asserts that his 210-month sentence

exceeded the statutory maximum pursuant to United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296

(2004). He maintains that he is challenging the legality of his

detention rather than his conviction because he should have been

released from prison in 2000. Dixon also contends that he should

be allowed to proceed under the § 2255 savings clause because

Booker and Blakely are mere extensions of established law, because

he is serving time for a nonexistent offense, and because his

Booker and Blakely claims were foreclosed at the time of his direct

appeal and first § 2255 motion. 

The district court properly determined that Dixon’s claims

should be raised in a § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre,

211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Dixon’s argument that he

should be permitted to proceed under the savings clause is

unavailing in light of this court’s decision in Padilla v. United

States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
§ 309.95 What procedures governing the location of custodial and noncustodial parents must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan? A Tribe or Tribal organization must include in its Tribal IV-D plan the provisions governing the location of custodial and noncustodial parents and their assets set forth in this section. ( a ) The Tribal IV-D agency must attempt to locate custodial or noncustodial parents or sources of income and/or assets when location is required to take necessary action in a case; and
( b ) The Tribal IV-D agency must use all sources of information and records reasonably available to the Tribe or Tribal organization to locate custodial or noncustodial parents and their sources of income and assets.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the filing of Universal Power Group, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report"), I, Julie Sansom-Reese, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as enacted pursuant to 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|/s/ Julie Sansom-Reese        | 
|Julie Sansom-Reese            | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(principal financial officer) | 

March 28, 2007

---
# CE2010016EN.01007901.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 16/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 16/79

---

Joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) *

P6_TA(2008)0529

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 November 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 219/2007 on the establishment of a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR) (COM(2008)0483 — C6-0305/2008 — 2008/0159(CNS))

(2010/C 16 E/22)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0483), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0483),

| — | having regard to Articles 171 and 172 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0305/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 171 and 172 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0305/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0439/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0439/2008),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

---
#### § 2555.455 Textbooks and curricular material.

Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted as requiring or prohibiting or abridging in any way the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
#### § 2105.49 What if the Agency needs clarification about fee issues?

If your FOIA request does not contain sufficient information for the Agency to determine your proper fee category or leaves another fee issue unclear, the Agency may ask you to provide additional clarification. If it does so, the Agency will notify you that it will not be able to comply with your FOIA request unless you provide the clarification requested.
§ 410.1107 Considerations when determining whether an unaccompanied child is a runaway risk for purposes of placement decisions. When determining whether an unaccompanied child is a runaway risk for purposes of placement decisions, ORR shall consider, among other factors, whether: ( a ) The unaccompanied child is currently under a final order of removal.
( b ) The unaccompanied child has previously absconded or attempted to abscond from State or Federal custody.
( c ) The unaccompanied child has displayed behaviors indicative of flight or has expressed intent to run away.
( d ) Evidence that the unaccompanied child is experiencing a strong trauma bond to or is threatened by a trafficker in persons or drugs.
§ 2554.33 How is evidence presented at the hearing? ( a ) The ALJ shall determine the admissibility of evidence.
( b ) Except as provided in this part, the ALJ shall not be bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the ALJ may apply the Federal Rules of Evidence where appropriate, e.g., to exclude unreliable evidence.
( c ) The ALJ shall exclude irrelevant and immaterial evidence.
( d ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or by considerations of undue delay or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
( e ) Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if it is privileged under Federal law.
( f ) Evidence concerning offers of compromise or settlement shall be inadmissible to the extent provided in Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
( g ) The ALJ shall permit the parties to introduce rebuttal witnesses and evidence.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Classroom EnvironmentClassroom TechniquesElementary Secondary EducationLanguage AcquisitionLearning StrategiesPrior LearningStudent MotivationTransfer of Training

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
§ 2522.570 What information on performance measures must my grant application include? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
You must submit all of the following as part of your application for each program: ( a ) Proposed performance measures, as described in § 2522.580 and § 2522.590 of this part.
( b ) Estimated performance data for the program years for which you submit your application; and
( c ) Actual performance data, where available, as follows: ( i ) For continuation programs, performance data over the course of the grant to date; and
( ii ) For recompeting programs, performance data for the preceding three-year grant cycle.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
#### Ferdinando Gatto, Respondent, *v.*William W. Flannagan, Appellant.

*Gatto*v. *Flannagan,*127 App. Div. 929, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted January 4, 1909;

decided January 12, 1909.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 15, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The motion was made upon the ground that the judgment of the Appellate Division was unanimous and, therefore, not appealable to the Court of Appeals.

*George A. Baker*for motion.

*Dallas Flannagan*and *Edward S. Clinch*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten. dollars costs of motion.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Diagnostic Imaging International Corp. (the Company) on 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Jagodnik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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.





|             |                                                 
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------
|             |                                                 
|May 12, 2008 | /s/ Richard Jagodnik                            
|             | Richard Jagodnik                                
|             | Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
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



I, Michael I. Roth, Chief Executive Officer of The MONY Group
Inc., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information
contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The MONY Group Inc.



/s/ Michael I. Roth

---

Michael I. Roth

May 15, 2003



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The MONY Group Inc. and will be retained by The MONY Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Adrian H. Muller and others agt. Elias S. Higgins.

*Special Term,*

*December,*1872.

On a motion for a new trial on the *judge's minutes,*no costs as for a *motion*can be allowed. The prevailing party ts entitled only to a *trial fee*for the trial of an issue of fact.

Appeal from the taxation of costs. •

On the rendering of the verdict the defendant moved for a new trial upon the judge’s minutes, under section 264 of the code. The motion was denied. Upon the taxation of the plaintiff’s costs, the clerk disallowed any other than a motion , fee for the motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. Foster, *for appellant.*

Mr. Babcock, *opposed.*

Monell, J.

The construction of this court in *Scudder*agt. *Gori*(28 *How.,*155), of the 807th section of the code was, that a motion for a new trial upon a case, although necessarily made at the special term, carried the same costs, as upon an appeal from a judgment which could only be heard at the general term. Such motion for a new trial is •named in express terms in the section, and is given the same costs as upon an appeal.

But a.motion for a new trial made upon the judge’s minutes is not a motion *on a*case; and although the grounds of the motion are the same, nevertheless, no *case*is required to be prepared, or settled, or used on the motion.

The construction, therefore, of the section in *Scudder*agt. *225
      *Gori*will not admit of its coming or being extended to any other motion for a new trial, than such as is made upon *a case*regularly made and settled.

Neither in my judgment is the plaintiff entitled to the fee prescribed for the trial of an issue of law. A motion of this character does not seem to me to be within the code’s definition of a trial—namely, *“*a judicial examination of the *issues*between the parties ” (§ 252).

But as this court at general term, many years ago, in an opinion which is fortified by several decisions of other courts *(Mechanics Banking Ass.*agt. Kiersted, 10 *How.,*400), and subsequently sustained in the general term of the supreme court *(Place*agt. *The Butternuts W. & C. Co.,*28 *How.,*184), held, that a motion for a new trial on a case was a *trial*within the definition alluded to, I am constrained to apply the principle to a like motion, made upon the judge’s minutes. There is no difference between the motions as respects this question.

If one is a trial, the other is equally so.

I am not aware of any subsequent decision or amendment of the code, which deprives the case referred to of its authority.

The plaintiff is entitled to a trial fee for the trial of an issue of fact, but not to any costs as for a motion.
EX-35.1



CHASE



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



RE:

JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust (JPMMAC) 2006-NC2: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement by and among U.S. Bank National Asssociation as Trustee, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian, J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I as Depositor, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association as Securities Administrator, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. as Seller, Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC as Trust Oversight Manager, and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA as Servicer (the "Agreement")





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust (JPMMAC) 2006-NC2 (the "Agreement"), does hereby certify that:

(1)

A review of the activities of the Servicer during the calendar year ending December 31, 2006 and of the performance of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(2)

To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year.

Date:  02/28/2007



JPMorgan Chase Bank,

National Association,

as Servicer



By: /s/ David Lowman

Name:David Lowman

Title: Executive Vice President
§ 1149.25 When, if ever, will time be tolled? Time will be tolled in the following instances: ( a ) If you are granted a 30 day extension to file your answer, the 30 days will be tolled to the six year oral hearing limitation thereby providing the ALJ six years and 30 days to serve the notice of oral hearing as discussed in § 1149.18(c);
( b ) If a notice of appeal is filed as discussed in § 1149.24(a);
( c ) If a motion is filed to disqualify a reviewing official or an ALJ disqualifies himself/herself as discussed in § 1149.31(c); or
( d ) In any other instance in which time is suspended or delayed as a result of an appeal, request for reconsideration, untimely filing, or extensions.
§ 502.1 Organization and authority—Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. ( a ) The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States (“the Commission”) is an independent agency of the Federal Government created by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954 (68 Stat. 1279) effective July 1, 1954. The Commission was transferred to the Department of Justice as an independent agency within that department as of October 1, 1980, under the terms of Public Law 96-209, approved March 14, 1980 (94 Stat. 96, 22 U.S.C. 1622a). Its duties and authority are defined in the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended (64 Stat. 12, 22 U.S.C. 1621-1645o) and the War Claims Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1240, 50 U.S.C. App. 2001-2017p).
( b ) The Commission has jurisdiction to determine the validity and amount of claims of United States nationals against foreign governments for compensation for losses and injuries sustained by those nationals, pursuant to programs authorized under either of the cited Acts. Funds for payment of claims are derived from international settlement agreements or through liquidation of foreign assets in the United States by the Department of Justice or Treasury, or from public funds when provided by the Congress.
( c ) The Chair and the two part-time members of the Commission are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve for 3-year terms of office as provided in 22 U.S.C. 1622c(c).
( d ) All functions of the Commission are vested in the Chair with respect to the internal management of the affairs of the Commission, including but not limited to: ( 1 ) The appointment of Commission employees;
( 2 ) The direction of Commission employees and the supervision of their official duties;
( 3 ) The distribution of business among employees and organizational units within the Commission;
( 4 ) The preparation of budget estimates; and
( 5 ) The use and expenditures of Commission funds appropriated for expenses of administration.
( e ) Requests for records must be made in writing by mail or presented in person to the Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Washington, DC 20579.
( f ) The offices of the Commission are located at 600 E Street NW (Bicentennial Building), Room 6002, Washington, DC.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                                |   |                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |   |                                                  |   |
| Date:  November                  14, 2007 | By:    | /s/              Daniel B.              O’Brien |   |
|                                                |   | Daniel              B.              O’Brien     |   |
|                                                |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer  |   |
|                                                |   |                                                  |   |

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date:  November                14, 2007 | /s/                Daniel B.                O’Brien                                                                Daniel                B. O’BrienChief                Financial Officer |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |