alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50687

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE DAVID SANCHEZ-MELGAR, also known

as Jose David Ramirez-Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-96-CR-67

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose David Sanchez-Melgar appeals his conviction and

sentence for illegal re-entry following deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez-Melgar argues that a prior felony

conviction is an element of the offense which must be alleged and

proved to support an enhanced sentence under § 1326(b)(1). This

court has held that subsection § 1326(b) is a sentencing

enhancement provision rather than a separate offense. United

States v. Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943, 945-47 (5th Cir. 1993),

cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 889 (1994).
No.96-50687

- 2 -

AFFIRMED.
#### Brown, Appellant, v. Hillen, Appellee.

Practice.

An irregularity 'which did not prejudice the appellant does not require a reversal of the judgment.

*Appeal from the County Court of Arapahoe County.*

Messrs. Sullivan & May, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit originally commenced by the appellee, Hillen, against the appellant, Brown, before a justice of the peace, upon a promissory note for two hundred dollars, executed by appellant to one Schooley. After sundry assignments and transfers, it came into the hands of appellee. The justice rendered judgment against appellant, from which he appealed to the county court. At the trial in that court witnesses upon both sides testified as to the history of the note, from its execution until its final transfer to appellee. Appellant testified as to a set-off to which he claimed to be entitled as against Schooley. The note was not formally given in evidence until rebuttal, when it was offered and admitted over the objection of appellant. The court rendered judgment in appellee’s favor for one hundred and forty-one dollars.

The appellant relies for a reversal of this judgment upon the ruling of the court permitting the introduction of the note in rebuttal. This was irregular, but we .do not see wherein the appellant has been prejudiced by the ruling. He might have moved for a nonsuit at the close of appellee’s ease, and before he offered any evidence himself, on the ground that no case had been made against him. He did *46not do this, but proceeded to examine witnesses, and introduce testimony, precisely as if the note was legally before the court. He does not complain that he was deprived of any defense by reason of the irregular action of the court, and the record shows that he was not. The want of the note in evidence should have been taken advantage of at the proper time, and, inasmuch as it was not, but the note on the contrary treated as if it was in evidence, the irregularity complained of, is not such as would, for the purposes of justice between the parties, demand a reversal of the judgment, and it is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### § 309.3 Stated valuation.

A stated valuation represents just compensation for the vessel to which it applies computed by the Ship Valuation Committee in accordance with sections 902(a) and 1209(a)(2) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. 1242(a), 1289(a)(2)). The stated valuation of a vessel does not include vessel stores and supplies, which consist of (a) consumable stores, (b) subsistence stores, (c) slop chest, (d) bar stock, and (e) fuel, as defined in Maritime Administration Inventory Book Forms MA-4736, A through K, which will be valued separately.
Promissory Note, Dated December 19, 2003



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED: 
  
 The undersigned, Money To Lend of Louisiana, Inc., a Louisiana Corporation, promises to pay Vance R. Martin, on November 20, 2006 the sum of Three
Hundred Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($300,250.00) together with interest at a rate of Eight Percent (8%) per annum, payable monthly by the tenth (10th) of each month. 
  
 The indebtedness evidenced by this note may be prepaid by the undersigned Maker in whole or in part prior to maturity on any interest paying date, together with accrued interest to the date of prepayment. The holder
hereof shall be entitled to receive from the undersigned Maker thirty (30) days prior written notice of its intention to prepay this note at his last address as shown by the records of the undersigned. In the event this note is not presented for
prepayment on the date called for in the written notice by the undersigned, interest shall nevertheless cease from and after such date. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Money To Lend of Louisiana, Inc. has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its President on the 19th day of December, 2003. 
  

			
	Money To Lend of Louisiana, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Vance R. Martin 

	Its:	 	President
MIED (Rev. 5/05) Statement of Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Plaintiff(s), Case No.

v. Judge

Defendant(s).

/

STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE

OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND FINANCIAL INTEREST

Pursuant to E. D. Mich. LR 83.4,

makes the following disclosure: (NOTE: A negative report, if appropriate, is required.)

1. Is said corporate party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation?

Yes No

If the answer is yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship

between it and the named party.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Relationship with Named Party:

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation or its affiliate, not a party to the case, that has a substantial financial

interest in the outcome of the litigation?

Yes No

If the answer is yes, list the identity of such corporation or affiliate and the nature of the financial interest.

Parent Corporation/Affiliate Name:

Nature of Financial Interest:

Date:

ELEKTA LTD. and WILLIAM BEAUMONT

HOSPITAL,

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

Elekta Ltd.

Ï

Elekta AB

Elekta Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Elekta AB

Ï

June 15, 2015 /s/ Andrew S. Rosenman

P54869

Mayer Brown LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 701-8744

arosenman@mayerbrown.com

Judge

Magistrate Judge

2:15-cv-12169-AC-MKM Doc # 2 Filed 06/15/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 160
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1505

To amend the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 to limit the award of liquidated

damages to employees of States and political subdivisions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 7, 1995

Mr. MCKEON (for himself, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, and Mr.

RIGGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 to limit the

award of liquidated damages to employees of States and

political subdivisions.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that the imposition of liquidated

5 damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 on

6 State and local governments for the nonpayment of mini7 mum wages or overtime compensation can create a wind8 fall for State and local government employees and an in9 justice to the taxpaying public if the nonpayment was a
2

•HR 1505 IH

1 technical, insubstantial, or unavoidable violation of such

2 Act.

3 SEC. 2. LIMIT ON LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.

4 Section 11 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 (29

5 U.S.C. 260) is amended by designating the text of the sec6 tion as subsection (a) and by adding at the end the follow7 ing:

8 ‘‘(b) In any action commenced before, on, or after

9 the date of the enactment of this subsection against a

10 State or political subdivision of a State to recover unpaid

11 minimum wages, overtime compensation, or liquidated

12 damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,

13 the State or political subdivision shall not be liable to pay

14 liquidated damages relating to such unpaid minimum

15 wages or overtime compensation—

16 ‘‘(1) if the State or political subdivision shows

17 to the satisfaction of the court that—

18 ‘‘(A) the minimum wages or overtime com19 pensation were paid by an instrument defined

20 under the laws of the State or political subdivi21 sion as negotiable, or

22 ‘‘(B) the minimum wages or overtime com23 pensation were not paid because of insolvency

24 of the State or political subdivision, failure of

25 the State or political subdivision to enact a
3

•HR 1505 IH

1 budget, or a natural disaster or other condition

2 beyond the control of the State or political sub3 division;

4 ‘‘(2) to any employee who cannot demonstrate

5 to the satisfaction of the court that the employee

6 suffered any actual harm as the result of the

7 nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime com8 pensation.

9 For purposes of paragraph (2), the term ‘actual harm’

10 shall be interpreted by the court to include only those cir11 cumstances where an employee has substantiated more

12 than a minimal monetary loss that is separate from, but

13 owing to, the nonpayment of minimum wages or overtime

14 compensation.’’.

Æ
Order entered February 13, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00921-CV

ELIZABETH JANE BURKS, Appellant

V.

JOHN J. DUNCAN, PH.D, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-02824-D

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 11, 2015, unopposed motion for extension of 

time to file reply brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER the reply brief be filed no 

later than March 12, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
# C_2014112EN.01001001.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-571/12) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Articles 70(1) and 78 - Customs declarations - Partial examination of goods - Sampling - Incorrect code - Application of the results to identical goods covered by earlier customs declarations after release - Post-release examination - Impossible to request a further examination of the goods))

2014/C 112/11

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Greencarrier Freight Services Latvia SIA

Applicant:

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 70(1), and of Article 78(2), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Application of the results of the examinations of part of the goods in a customs declaration also to identical goods included in other declarations — Whether such a practice by the customs authorities is permissible — Post-clearance examination — Application of the results of the examinations also to declarations which can no longer be verified.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, since it applies only to goods covered by ‘a [single] declaration’ where those goods are examined by the customs authorities before those authorities grant the release of those goods, that provision does not permit those authorities, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, to apply the results of the partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration to goods covered by earlier customs declarations which have already been released by those authorities;

However, Article 78 of that Code is to be interpreted as meaning that it permits the customs authorities to apply the results of a partial examination of goods covered by a customs declaration, carried out by way of sampling of them, to goods covered by earlier customs declarations submitted by the same customs declarant, which were not and can no longer be examined since the release has been granted, where those goods are identical, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.12

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 Cameco Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Grant E. Isaac, Senior
Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                       
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Grant E. Isaac                                    
|    |  | Name: Grant E. Isaac                                  
|    |  | Title: Senior Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer

February 24, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

OCHUKO IGHOFOSE,

Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 15-11951

Honorable Victoria A Roberts

OAKLAND COUNTY SHERIFF’S, ET AL,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

On August 11, 2015, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #5). Plaintiff

failed to respond. 

After reviewing the motion in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court

GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

Defendants’ motion does not address Plaintiff’s state law claims of Gross

Negligence (Count IV), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count V), and

Conversion (Count VII).

Because the Court dismisses all of Plaintiff’s federal claims, it declines to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. These are dismissed

without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1368 (c) (3).

IT IS ORDERED.

 /s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: October 8, 2015

2:15-cv-11951-VAR-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 41
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

October 8, 2015.

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:15-cv-11951-VAR-DRG Doc # 6 Filed 10/08/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 42
#### George E. Apsley, *Appellant, v.*John Wood, *Respondent.*

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs of motion; order setting aside judgment modified by making it optional with plaintiff to refer or not and as so modified affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          58,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                       175
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,373
<PP&E>                                           4,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,819
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,629
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 111–233—AUG. 16, 2010 124 STAT. 2493 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3509: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Mar. 17, 18, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 5, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–233 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To reauthorize State agricultural mediation programs under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agricultural Credit Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 

5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2015’’. 

Approved August 16, 2010. 

7 USC 5101 note. 

Agricultural 

Credit Act of 

2010. 

Aug. 16, 2010 

[H.R. 3509] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending March 24, 2007

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|CAPITAL ONE BANK  | * 18C          | Capital One Bank, Glen Allen, Virginia, to acquire certain assets and assume certain liabilities of Capital One, F.S.B., McLean, Virginia.                                                                                                           | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable
|PSB HOLDING CORP. | 4c8            | PSB Holding Corp., Preston, Maryland, to engage in the origination and sale of residential mortgage loans to the secondary marketng through the retention of 100% of the voting securities of Community Bank Mortgage Corporation, Easton, Maryland. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:04/03/2007   
|Newspaper:        | Not applicable
|Federal Register: | 04/03/2007    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pop N Go, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

|                      |                                                                                      
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:
August 15, 2007 |                                                                                      
|                      | By:
/s/ Melvin Wyman                                                                 
|                      | Name:
Melvin Wyman                                                                   
|                      | Title:
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting                       Officer
|                      |                                                                                      



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pop N Go, Inc. and will be retained by Pop N Go, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.