alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFRED VILLANEDA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Director of the

California Department of Corrections,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-56923

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00824-SVW-AN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2011 

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alfred Villaneda appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition

as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We granted a certificate of appealability

FILED

MAY 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 The government’s objection to Villaneda’s fifth claim that it was not 1

exhausted lacks merit, as it was raised in his habeas petition before the California

Supreme Court.

2

(“COA”) as to whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition as timebarred, including whether Villaneda’s judgment became final based on the date of

his resentencing. Because the parties agree that the district court erred in

calculating the statute of limitations, we reverse and remand.

The government concedes on appeal that Villaneda’s judgment did not

become final until October 10, 2006, sixty days after his resentencing and the entry

of the amended judgment. See Cal. Penal Code § 1237(a); Cal. R. Ct. 8.308;

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (the AEDPA limitations period does

“not begin until both [the] conviction and sentence ‘became final’”). Because the

limitations period was tolled by Villaneda’s pending state habeas proceedings, 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), his June 19, 2008 federal petition was timely by one day

under AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations.

Villaneda requests that we expand the COA to include five additional

claims. The government earlier did not object at least as to four of those claims,1

but now cites intervening Supreme Court authority to contest the expansion. We
3

remand the petition without prejudice so that Villaneda’s additional claims may be

considered in the first instance by the district court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
# C_2017382EN.01002301.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

(Case C-223/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tenderer relying on the capacities of other entities to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Loss by those entities of the capacities required - National legislation providing for the exclusion of the tenderer from the call for tenders and for the award of the contract to a competitor))

(2017/C 382/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

Applicant:

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Agenzia Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

Defendants:

Third parties: Consorzio Stabile Infratech, W.E.E. Water Environment Energy SpA, Massimo Fontana, Studio Tecnico Associato Thinkd, Claudio Della Rocca, Nicola Maione, Vittorio Ciotola, Fin.Se.Co. SpA, Edilgen SpA, Site Srl

Third parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which excludes the possibility for an economic operator taking part in a tendering procedure to replace an auxiliary undertaking that has lost required qualifications after the submission of its tender and which results in the automatic exclusion of that operator.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
No. 54496.

#### Kraus Bros. & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 136043-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 60730.

#### Eugenio Mireles *v.*United States,

protest 300375-K (Laredo).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial, a laboratory report was received in evidence (exhibit 1), and it was conceded by Government counsel that the facts contained in the exhibit were correct. An examination of exhibit 1 showing that the calcium fluoride content of the samples of fluorspar from the shipment involved was over 97 percent by weight, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 99.2

    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 Annual Report of China Wireless Communications,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2001, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Brad Woods, 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:

(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/ BRAD WOODS
--------------------------------------
Brad Woods
Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 879 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 879

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                           May 9, 2018.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3053) to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and for other 
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in 
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-69. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points 
of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate 
vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original 
text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# Map            Transportation corridors into Iraq.
No. 57589.

#### W. R. Grace & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 178443-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Clean Content” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                ENERGYSOUTH, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                THREE MONTHS            SIX MONTHS           TWELVE MONTHS
                                               ENDED MARCH 31,        ENDED MARCH 31,       ENDED MARCH 31,
                                            1998          1997       1998        1997       1998        1997
                                            ----          ----       ----        ----       ----        ----

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)

<S>                                       <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>    
Earnings applicable to common stock       $ 4,791      $ 4,861     $ 6,779     $ 6,900     $ 8,005     $ 8,412

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                             4,862        4,842       4,860       4,840       4,856       4,834

Basic earnings per share                  $  0.99      $  1.00     $  1.39     $  1.43     $  1.65     $  1.74


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)

Earnings applicable to common stock       $ 4,791      $ 4,861     $ 6,779     $ 6,900     $ 8,005     $ 8,412

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                             4,862        4,842       4,860       4,840       4,856       4,834

Incremental shares resulting from
    assumed exercise of stock options          67           39          68          32          56          25

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding, assuming dilution          4,929        4,881       4,928       4,872       4,912       4,859

Diluted earnings per share                $  0.97      $  1.00     $  1.38     $  1.42     $  1.63     $  1.73
</TABLE>


(1)   Restated to reflect three-for-two conversion of Mobile Gas common stock
      into EnergySouth common stock effective February 2, 1998. See Note 1 of
      Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1998.



                                       15
854098.38.01 10/18/02 10:42 AM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RUPERTO WAGE :

FLORENTINA WAGE : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4169

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04169-RB Document 10 Filed 10/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT
99.9**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **RULE
13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)**
 **OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
 
 I,
Robert J. Waters, certify that:
  1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Enerplus Resources
      Fund;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 issuer as
      of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    The
      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 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 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 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 issuer's internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the issuer's internal control over financial reporting;
      and5.
    The
      issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the 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 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 issuer's internal control
      over financial reporting.
  Date:
      March 14, 2005
    /s/
      Robert J. WatersRobert
      J. Waters
      Senior
      Vice President and
      Chief
      Financial Officer of EnerMark Inc.
Document

Exhibit 10.79

AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO
PENSION EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN OF THE CHUBB CORPORATION
(EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2008)


WHEREAS, The Chubb Corporation or (“Chubb” or the “Company) maintains the Pension Excess Benefit plan of The Chubb Corporation (the "Pension Excess Plan" or the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan under Section 8.1 thereof; and 
WHEREAS, pursuant to the charter of the Employee Benefits Committee (the  "Committee") adopted by the Company on June 12, 2008, the Committee has the authority to approve amendments to the Plan, provided the Committee determines the amendment is necessary or desirable and does not increase the costs of the Plan to the Company or a Participating Employer in the Plan, by more than $250,000 on an annual basis. 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Pension Excess Plan is amended as follows: 
1.Effective January 1, 2012, Section 5.4 of the plan is amended to read in its entirety:
"If a Participant receives a Pre-2005 Excess Benefit as a deferred lump sum or in installments, the unpaid benefit shall be credited with interest based on the Applicable Interest Rate as defined in the Qualified Plan re-determined for each Plan Year in which there is an unpaid benefit, but in no event less than 4% in any Plan Year.  If a payment of a Participant’s Post-2004 Excess Benefit is deferred because the Participant is a Specified Employee, such lump sum shall be increased by 2.5% to reflect such delay in payment." 
2.Effective as of January 1, 2012, including with respect to elections made pursuant to Section 5.3 with respect to Pre-2005 Excess Benefits that have not yet commenced payment, Section 5.3 is amended so that the words “sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%)” are replaced by the words “seventy-five percent (75%)” in the second paragraph thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employee Benefits Committee has caused this amendment to be duly executed on this 26th day of July     , 2011. 


EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE




By:
Exhibit No. 32.2
Form 10-KSB/A
Pegasus Wireless Corp.
File No. 000-32567



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


In connection  with the Annual Report of Pegasus  Wireless Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen Durland, 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:

     (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.


Dated: September 20, 2005             By:  /s/Stephen Durland
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                          Stephen Durland
                                          Chief Financial Officer

--------------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2015213EN.01004002.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/40

---

Action brought on 11 May 2015 — Cofra v OHIM — Armand Thiery (1841)

(Case T-233/15)

(2015/C 213/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Armand Thiery SAS (Levallois Perret, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1841’ — Community trade mark No 9 119 553

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2015 in Case R 805/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the other party to the appeal proceedings, should it intervene in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 40(6) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-31232

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-184

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Joseph has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Joseph has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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

February 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-31232 Document: 00513363245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2016
No. 14-31232

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-31232 Document: 00513363245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2016