alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10043

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERONIMO BERNAL-GARCIA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-77-ALL

Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jeronimo Bernal-Garcia pled guilty to one count of possession with intent

to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 168

months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The district

court’s judgment was entered on October 10, 2007. On December 13, 2007,

Bernal-Garcia filed a pro se motion to file an out-of-time appeal arguing that

trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal despite having been asked to

do so. He also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 13, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10043

2

appointment of appellate counsel. The district court denied Bernal-Garcia’s

motion to file an out-of-time appeal as untimely because it was not filed within

thirty days of the expiration of the appeal period as required by FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(4). Further, because the motion was untimely, the district court

determined that Bernal-Garcia was not entitled to proceed IFP or to the

appointment of appellate counsel.

Bernal-Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s

denial of his motion. He also filed motions to proceed IFP on appeal and for the

appointment of appellate counsel. The district court granted Bernal-Garcia’s

IFP motion but denied his motion for the appointment of appellate counsel.

Bernal-Garcia now moves this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for

the appointment of appellate counsel. 

Because the district court has granted Bernal-Garcia’s motion to proceed

IFP on appeal, the IFP motion before this court is denied as moot. Further, this

court can dismiss an appeal during consideration of an interlocutory motion if

the appeal “is frivolous and entirely without merit.” 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. BernalGarcia did not file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of the

criminal judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(1)(A). His motion to file an out-oftime appeal was filed beyond the time for extending the appeal period under

FED. R. APP. P. 4(b)(4). Thus, the district court did not err in enforcing the time

limitations set forth in Rule 4(b), and this court may not reverse its decision to

do so. See United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because the instant appeal is without arguable merit, Bernal-Garcia’s motion

for the appointment of appellate counsel is denied, and the appeal is dismissed

as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form SGI 
International's Form 10-K for the year ended Decmeber 31, 1997, and is qualified
in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000737955
<NAME>                        SGI International
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     0
       
<S>                             <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         429,232
<SECURITIES>                                   402,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                  577,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                   84,460
<INVENTORY>                                    64,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,648,745
<PP&E>                                         1,378,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                 589,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,590,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,933,304
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    910
<COMMON>                                       39,927,760
<OTHER-SE>                                     (40,485,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,590,445
<SALES>                                        5,279,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,322,724
<CGS>                                          3,898,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,898,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,390,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             741,776
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,708,302)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,708,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,708,302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.88)
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

 

 

 

 

 

April 28, 2006

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Commissioners:

 

 

We are aware that our report dated April 28, 2006 on our review of interim financial information of NSTAR for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and March 31, 2005 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-117014), Form S-4 (No. 333-78285) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-85559 and 333-87272).

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPBoston, Massachusetts
From: susanmarkham@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susan Markham

Huntington Beach, CA 92649
From: sandy.cain@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:41:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Sandra Cain

Edinburgh, IN 46124
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21
                                                                    ----------

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP

Name                                            State of Incorporation
----                                            ----------------------

Pacific Bell                                    California

Pacific Bell Directory                          California

Pacific Bell Information Services               California

Pacific Bell Mobile Services                    California

Pacific Bell Internet Services                  California

Pacific Bell Network Integration                California

Nevada Bell                                     Nevada

Pacific Telesis Mobile Services                 California

Pacific Bell Communications                     California

Pacific Telesis Enterprises                     California

Pacific Telesis Enhanced Services               California

Pacific Telesis Interactive Media               California

Pacific Telesis Video Services                  California

Cross Country Wireless Inc.                     Delaware

Pacific Telesis Wireless Broadband Services     California

Telesis Technologies Laboratory, Inc.           California

PacTel Capital Resources                        California

PacTel Capital Funding                          California

PacTel Re Insurance Company, Inc.               Hawaii

Pacific Telesis - Washington                    California
#### Nell St. John, Appellant, *v.*Jere F. Collins et al., Defendants, and Kate F. Collins, Respondent.

*St. John*v. *Collins,*146 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Submitted January 21, 1913;

decided February 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 28, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to foreclose a mortgage.

*Samuel H. Sternberg*for appellant.

*Meier Steinbrink*and *Frank F. Johnson, Jr.,*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Hiscock, Collin, Cuddeback and Miller, JJ.
No. 151.

#### Bankers Trust Co. et al., Executors, *v.*United States.

*Leonard M. Wallstein, Jr.*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer*and *John B. Jones, Jr.*for the United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: l.dytewski@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:31:01 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Laura Dytewski

Portland, OR 97229
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
Amended Quarterly Report of Vail Banks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary S. Judd, Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary S. Judd
Gary S. JuddChief Executive Officer and PresidentOctober 25,
2004
From: emidanmeg3@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:36:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

William Johnson

Lilburn, GA 30047
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 02, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 02, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0413. DAVID EARL BRITT v. TOM DAVIS, JUDGE et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

17A035333
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES
F-2 AND F-3 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000736012
<NAME> ODS NETWORKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,602
<SECURITIES>                                    73,733
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,171
<INVENTORY>                                     10,692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,823
<PP&E>                                          12,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           186
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,577
<SALES>                                         57,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,951
<CGS>                                           32,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    85
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,040)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,040)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT THOMAS SCOTT, JR.

v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW PETITION OF: LIFESTEPS, INC., Intervenor : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 22 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 63939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20129]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD349]


Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Final 
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the NMFS Saltonstall-
Kennedy Research and Development Program

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: NOAA announces the availability of a Record of Decision for 
the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) which 
analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the implementation of 
projects that foster the promotion, marketing, research, and 
development of U.S. Fisheries and their associated fishing sectors, as 
consistent with NOAA's Saltonstall-Kennedy Research and Development 
Program (S-K Program).

ADDRESSES: The Record of Decision and the Final PEIS are available 
online on the S-K Program website at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/funding-and-financial-services/saltonstall-kennedy-research-and-development-program. Please visit the website for further 
information, or contact the S-K Program Manager below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S-K Program Manager, Jen Foss, (202) 
657-3389, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f6162697c217c64217f6a667c4f61606e6e21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="234d4e45500d50480d53464a50634d4c42420d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Issued in Silver Spring, MD.


    Dated: September 8, 2023.
Daniel A. Namur,
Director of the NMFS Financial Assistance Division, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-20129 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Theodore Poorman, Appellant, v. Henry Moore, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Barker, J.
No. 169.

#### Maddox *v.*Fidelity Investment & Title Co., Inc., et al.

*Luther Robinson Maddox,*petitioner, *pro se.*

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.