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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-41570

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN CRAIG HALLSTEAD, also known as 

Craig Hallsted,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-41-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 6, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Craig Hallstead pleaded guilty to conspiracy to

commit a theft of trade secrets of Intel Corporation. He

challenges the district court’s increase of his offense level by

Intel’s research and development costs to produce the product

which Hallstead sought to sell to Intel’s competitor before the

product was to be put on the open market. Hallstead contends

that the fair market value of the product (the price Intel

intended to sell the product when sold to its customers several 
No. 98-41570

-2-

months after Hallstead attempted to sell it) was ascertainable

and that the district court clearly erred by not using the fair

market value when calculating Hallstead’s sentence. He also

argues that the evidence did not sufficiently support the

district court’s valuation of the research and development costs

for the product and that the amount determined by the district

court was clearly erroneous.

The district court’s calculation of the amount of the loss

involved in the offense is a factual finding, and we review it

for clear error. United States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313

(5th Cir. 1992). Our review of the record reveals that there was

no market for the product Hallstead sought to sell at the time of

the offense, and the district court did not err, clearly or

otherwise, in not using a fair market value to calculate the loss

involved in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.2). 

The record further reveals that there was sufficient evidence

supporting, and the district court did not clearly err with

respect to, the amount determined as Intel’s research and

development costs for the product involved in Hallstead’s

offense.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government’s motion to limit disclosure of confidential

information of Intel in any published opinion is GRANTED.
Exhibit
32.2



CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth R.
Hanks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 13, 2004 |  |  |  | /S/    KENNETH R. HANKS                 
|                        |  |  |  |                                         
|                        |  |  |  | Kenneth R. Hanks Chief Financial Officer
No. R67/58.

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

reappraisement R64/21439 (Port Everglades).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues of fact and law are the same in all material respects as those in *Kurt Orbcm*Company, *Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 20, C.A.D. 851), the court found and held that export value, as that value is definied in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis of value for the galvanized wire and round steel wire in issue and that said value is the appraised value, less inland freight and f.o.b. charges of $9.75 per metric ton.
Exhibit 10.14

Essential Innovations Technology Corp.



Ken Telford


Position -        CFO, Secretary/ Treasurer & Director

                  Essential Innovations Technology Corp. and Essential
                  Innovations Asia Limited

Term -            August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2005; automatic 1 year renewal at
                  July 31, 2004 (extending contract to July 31, 2006) and every
                  year thereafter unless Company advises that contract will not
                  be renewed; at time of automatic 1 year renewal July 31, 2004,
                  if appropriate funding is available, the salary may be
                  re-negotiated for the third year extension,

Basic Salary:     First year                US $150,000
                  Second year               US $165,000

Salary to accrue until such time as the Company has the cash reserves to begin
to make payment in a timely manner each month; additionally, the option will be
given to convert accrued wages to shares of stock at the desire of the executive
at a pre-determined conversion price.

                  Bonus plan to be agreed

Shares -          additional 200,000 to be issued upon entering into new
                  contract

Options -         additional 350,000 to be issued upon entering into new
                  agreement

         - Participation in any option plan instigated by EITC

Benefits:

         -        vehicle + operating costs
         -        group health / dental ( for self and family)
         -        assistance with relocation costs
         -        pay for immigration or visa requirements
         -        any other benefits that the Company may implement for similar
                  position
         -        reimbursement of business expenses
         -        pay for professional association dues
         -        pay for required continuing professional education
         -        paid vacation of 4 weeks per year
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER OF TUESDAY MORNING CORPORATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350

 

I, Loren K. Jensen, the Chief Financial Officer of Tuesday MorningCorporation, hereby certify that:

 

1.                                       Thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tuesday Morning Corporation for theperiod ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TuesdayMorning Corporation.

 

 
| Date: October 31, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Loren K. Jensen                      |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Loren K. Jensen  Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
(Reap. Dec. 11113)

#### Oriental Exporters, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 793576.

(Decided December 15, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for tbe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, as follows:

> (1) That tbe involved merchandise consists of radios and parts thereof entered for consumption after the effective date of tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that said merchandise is not identified on tbe Final List published by tbe Secretary of tbe Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521), and that appraisement was accordingly made under Section 402 of tbe Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by said Customs Simplification Act.

> *717(2) That on or about the date of exportation, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States was $4.00 each net, packed.

> (3) That this appeal may be submitted upon this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issue hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of facts, I find and hold that the involved merchandise was entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after February 27, 1958; that said merchandise does not appear on the final list published in T.D. 54521, effective February 27,1958; that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, 91 Treas. Dec. 295, T.D. 54165, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and I find and hold that such statutory value is $4 each, net packed; and that the appeal, having been abandoned insofar as it relates to merchandise not hereinabove described, is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
II

Calendar No. 13

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5

Waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 relating to the

appointment of the United States Trade Representative.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

FEBRUARY 3, 1997

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of January 30, 1997 by

Mr. ROTH, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 relating

to the appointment of the United States Trade Representative.

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2171(b)(3)) became effective on January 1, 1996, and provides certain limitations with respect to the appointment of the United States Trade

Representative and Deputy United States Trade Representatives;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 does not apply to any individual who was serving
2

SJ 5 RS

as the United States Trade Representative or Deputy

United States Trade Representative on the effective date

of such paragraph (3) and who continued to serve in that

position;

Whereas Charlene Barshefsky was appointed Deputy United

States Trade Representative on May 28, 1993, with the

advice and consent of the Senate, and was serving in that

position on January 1, 1996;

Whereas paragraph (3) of section 141(b) of the Trade Act

of 1974 does not apply to Charlene Barshefsky in her capacity as Deputy United States Trade Representative;

and

Whereas in light of the foregoing, it is appropriate to continue to waive the provisions of paragraph (3) of section

141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky as the United States

Trade Representative: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of

4 section 141(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.

5 2171(b)(3)) or any other provision of law, the President,

6 acting by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,

7 is authorized to appoint Charlene Barshefsky as the

8 United States Trade Representative.

Calendar No. 13

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 5

JOINT RESOLUTION

Waiving certain provisions of the Trade Act of

States Trade Representative.1974 relating to the appointment of the United

FEBRUARY 3, 1997

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of

January 30, 1997, without amendment
```

[Federal Register: July 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 144)]
[Notices]               
[Page 44215]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28jy10-37]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Louisiana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of 
the Louisiana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by 
conference call at 2 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 3:30 p.m. on 
Wednesday, August 25, 2010. The purpose of this meeting is to provide 
SAC orientation and to plan future activities for SAC project.
    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-
free call-in number: (866) 364-7584, conference call access code number 
90226766. Any interested member of the public may call this number and 
listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls 
they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund 
any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they 
initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and contact name Farella E. 
Robinson.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Corrine Sanders of the Central Regional Office and TTY/TDD telephone 
number, by 4 p.m. on August 20, 2010.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by September 9, 2010. 
The address is U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 400 State Avenue, Suite 
908, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may be e-mailed to 
frobinson@usccr.gov. Records generated by this meeting may be inspected 
and reproduced at the Central Regional Office, as they become 
available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the 
work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's 
Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Central Regional 
Office at the above e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, July 23, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-18481 Filed 7-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
# L_2022199EN.01000501.xml

| 28.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/5

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2022/1318

of 26 July 2022

appointing a member of the Court of Auditors

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(5) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | By means of Decision (EU) 2019/2173 (2), Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER was appointed as a member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By means of Decision (EU) 2019/2173 (2), Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER was appointed as a member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025.

| (2) | By letter of 3 June 2021, Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER presented his resignation as a member of the Court of Auditors with effect from 1 January 2022. In accordance with Article 286(5), third subparagraph, of the Treaty, he remained in office pending the appointment of his successor. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter of 3 June 2021, Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER presented his resignation as a member of the Court of Auditors with effect from 1 January 2022. In accordance with Article 286(5), third subparagraph, of the Treaty, he remained in office pending the appointment of his successor.

| (3) | On 14 April 2022, Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER passed away. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 14 April 2022, Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER passed away.

| (4) | A new member of the Court of Auditors should be appointed to serve for the remainder of Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER’s term of office. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

A new member of the Court of Auditors should be appointed to serve for the remainder of Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER’s term of office.

| (5) | The Kingdom of the Netherlands has proposed the appointment of Mr Stephanus Abraham BLOK as a member of the Court of Auditors from 1 September 2022, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has proposed the appointment of Mr Stephanus Abraham BLOK as a member of the Court of Auditors from 1 September 2022,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Stephanus Abraham BLOK is hereby appointed as a member of the Court of Auditors for the period from 1 September 2022 until 31 December 2025.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 2022.

For the Council

The President

J. SÍKELA

---

(1)  Opinion of 23 June 2022 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2173 of 16 December 2019 appointing five members of the Court of Auditors (OJ L 329, 19.12.2019, p. 94).

2

---
Ex 31-2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael W. Broadbear, certify that;

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Legal Access
Technologies, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and

(5) The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: October 17, 2005


      /s/ Michael W. Broadbear
      By: Michael W. Broadbear
      Title: Principal Financial Officer
A89A1932.

#### FREEMAN v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 300)

Decided January 23, 1990.

*A. Nevell Owens,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Grover W. Hudgins, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s verdict.

1. The trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress is enumerated as error.

The trial court was authorized to find the following: An officer stopped appellant’s vehicle. This stop was based upon the officer’s articulable suspicion that appellant was committing a non-moving traffic offense. In violation of OCGA § 40-2-38, the license plate on appellant’s vehicle was not plainly visible and the officer could not determine, without stopping appellant, whether the vehicle was being operated in violation of OCGA § 40-2-8 (b) and (c). During the course of this investigatory stop, the officer observed cocaine in plain view in appellant’s automobile.

On this evidence, the trial court clearly was correct in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. The original stop of the automobile was authorized and the subsequent seizure of contraband which was in the officer’s plain view did not violate appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights. *State v. Webb,*193 Ga. App. 2 (1, 2) (386 SE2d 891) (1989).

2. “The jury resolved the conflicting versions of the events against [appellant], and the evidence was sufficient to enable any rational trier of fact to find [him] guilty of [possession of cocaine with intent to distribute] beyond a reasonable doubt. [Cit.]” *Evans v. State,*191 Ga. App. 364-365 (1) (381 SE2d 760) (1989).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
Before the Second Division,

December 22, 1947

No. 52077.

protests 517502-G, etc. (New York).

#### J. C. Penney Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated-that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.