alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

____________________________________________ 

 : Case No. 2:03-CV-5336 

In Re DVI, Inc. Securities Litigation : 

____________________________________________: Hon. Legrome D. Davis 

LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER 

APPROVING FOURTH SETTLEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, 

AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES 

Lead Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(e) 

for an order, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, approving the Settlement 

Agreement that Lead Plaintiffs have entered into with Defendants Thomas J. Pritzker and 

the Pritzker Organization LLC (the “Settlement”). 

For the reasons set forth in Lead Plaintiffs’ accompanying Memorandum of Law 

in Support of Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement, Lead Plaintiffs 

respectfully request that this Court (a) approve the Settlement; (b) approve the parties’ 

plan of allocation; and (c) award Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s requested attorneys’ fees and 

expense reimbursement. 

Dated: April 3, 2009 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 

 By: /s/ Michael R. Karnuth

 Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. 

 Michael R. Karnuth, Esq. 

 Robert P. DeWitte, Esq. 

 20 North Wacker Drive 

 Chicago, Illinois 60606 

 Phone: 312-606-0500 

 Fax: 312-606-0207 

 Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 678 Filed 04/03/09 Page 1 of 2
2

 Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. 

 Attorney I.D. No. 50579 

 CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP 

 361 W. Lancaster Avenue 

 One Haverford Centre 

 Haverford, PA 19041 

 Phone: 610-642-8500 

 Fax: 610-649-3633 

 Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel 

Case 2:03-cv-05336-LDD Document 678 Filed 04/03/09 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99

                            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 accompanying annual report of The Lionshare Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, George E. Weast, principal executive officer and principal
accounting 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By:     /s/George E. Weast
        ------------------
     George E. Weast

     November 18, 2002



<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      I, Christine A. Herren, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of
Innotrac Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleY Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      September 30, 2005 (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: November 14, 2005

                               /s/ Christine A. Herren
                               ----------------------------
                               Christine A. Herren
                               Senior Director and Controller (Principal
                               Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
                               Officer)
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 13, 2011

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-12928 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 7:07-cr-00467-RDP-TMP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

GEOFFREY FOSTER,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Alabama

 ________________________

(June 13, 2011)

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

J. Tim Coyle, appointed counsel for Geoffrey Foster, has filed a motion to

withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In response, the

government has filed a motion to dismiss Foster’s direct appeal, asserting that his

notice of appeal was untimely. On June 12, 2008, the district court entered a

judgment of conviction against Foster for being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On June 18, 2010, more than two years after

Foster’s judgment was entered, Foster signed his pro se notice of direct appeal.

We review de novo the interpretation of rules of federal procedure. United

States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 2009). A defendant’s notice of

appeal in a criminal case must be filed within 14 days after the entry of the

judgment being appealed. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(1)(A). In addition, the district court

may extend the time to appeal, upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause,

for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the initial appeal period. 

Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4). Unlike the time limits governing appeals in civil cases, the

deadline in Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“Rule 4(b)”)

for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional because it is not

grounded in a federal statute. Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1312-13. In fact, it is a rule “for

processing claims that assure[s] relief to a party properly raising [it],” and the

failure to argue timeliness forfeits that contention. Id. at 1312 (quotation omitted). 

When the government properly objects to the untimeliness of a defendant’s

2
criminal appeal, we “must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b).” Id. at 1314. 

Because Foster’s notice of appeal was filed two years after the entry of

judgment and the government has raised the issue of timeliness in its motion to

dismiss, we apply the Rule 4(b) time limits. See Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1314. 

Furthermore, because Foster’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the

expiration of the appeal period, he is not eligible for an extension of the appeal

period under Rule 4(b)(4). Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4); Lopez, 562 F.3d at 1314. 

Therefore, we dismiss Foster’s appeal as untimely. Based on this holding, we

deny Coyle’s motion to withdraw as moot. 

The government’s motion to dismiss Foster’s appeal is GRANTED and

counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot.

3
Before the First Division,

August 30, 1946

No. 51277.

#### Protest 112193-K of Lador, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of music boxes the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Thorens Co.*v. *United States*(15 Cust. Ct. 165, C. D. 965). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

August 8, 1949

No. 53460.

petitions 6543-R, etc. (San Diego).

#### Estate of Charles Woo Quong, Deceased, M. D. Zinn, Administrator *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petitions were dismissed.
No. 63564.

protests 169182-K, etc. (New York).

#### B. *&*F. Antique Silver, Ltd., and American Shipping Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks and candelabras similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62036, except that they are plated with gold, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL NARVIOS, ) No. 08-16249 ) Petitioner – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 5:02-CV-05378-RMW ) v. ) MEMORANDUM * ) A. A. LAMARQUE, Warden, ) ) Respondent – Appellee. ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Paul Narvios appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We affirm. The district court did not err when it determined that Narvios’ right to 

# FILED
AUG 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 SeeU.S. Const. amend. VI.
2 See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Lockyer v. Andrade , 538 U.S. 63, 75–76, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 1174–75, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405–08, 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1519–20, 146 L. Ed. 2d 389 (2000) .
3 Because the California court’s decision was final before Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 68–69, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004) was decided, Roberts controls the Confrontation Clause analysis. See Whorton v. Bockting , 549 U.S. 406, 409, 127 S. Ct. 1173, 1177, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2007).
4 We note that the state did exert r easonable efforts to make the victim available. See California v. Green , 399 U.S. 149, 167 n.16, 90 S. Ct. 1930, 1939 n.16, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1970); id. at 189 n.22, 90 S. Ct. at 1951 n.22 (Harlan, J., concurring); Christian , 41 F.3d at 467.
5 SeeFry v. Pliler , 551 U.S. 112, 117–20, 127 S. Ct. 2321, 2325–27, 168 L. (continued...) 2 confront the witness against him 1 was not violated and that Narvios did not meet the requirements for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2On the record before them, the state courts could properly determine that his victim’s out of court statement was admissible because the statement was reliable and she was not available. See Idaho v. Wright , 497 U.S. 805, 821–22, 110 S. Ct. 3139, 3150, 111 L. Ed. 2d 638 (1990); Ohio v. Roberts , 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2539, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980); 3 Christian v. Rhode , 41 F.3d 461, 467–68 (9th Cir. 1994); Barker v. Morris , 761 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985); In re Cindy L. , 17 Cal. 4th 15, 28-30, 947 P.2d 1340, 1349–50, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 803, 812–13 (1997). 4 Moreover, even if there had been error, Narvios has shown no prejudice; 5 his5 (...continued) Ed. 2d 16 (2007); Brecht v. Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 1722, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993). 3 confession, his testimony, and the corroborating evidence demonstrated that. AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998         
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                        2,498
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 14,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                  73
<INVENTORY>                                   12,826
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              29,939
<PP&E>                                        198,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                5,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                230,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11,498
<BONDS>                                       188,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                    30,244
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  230,692
<SALES>                                       61,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              61,596
<CGS>                                         45,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 2,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            9,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        

</TABLE>
Date: 9/27/99

1000 NAME: Hank Sigmon

2000 E-MAIL: hanks@1sttech.com

3000 TITLE: Controller

4000 ORG: First Technology

5000 ORG TYPE: Community/Consumer Organization

6000 PHONE: 503-350-3331

7000 FAX: 503-526-3213

8000 COMMENTS: We have been participating in the Treasury Direct Program
for approximately 2 and a half years. During that time we have used the
Treasury funds primarily for overnight investments rather than a source of
borrowings. We have averaged approximately a 25 basis point return on
Treasury funds deposited with us.

Using the overnight repurchase rate and effectively reducing our spread on
this matched investment to 2 basis points will make us question the true
return of participating in the program.

We are a state chartered credit union and do not calculate capital adequacy
using a risk based model. Participation in the Treasury program requires
additional disclosure to our regulators. We also must manage the
safekeeping aspects of our collateral pledged to the Federal reserve, our
securities portfolio.

During our brief participation in the program we have experienced several
unanticipated "Calls" which resulted in a negative balance in our account
with the Federal Reserve, and consequently monetary fines.

Given the additional regulatory and safekeeping management aspects, coupled
with the potential for unanticipated "Calls" we would have to seriously
evaluate participating in the program for a 2 basis point spread.

Regards,
Hanks Sigmon

Controller
First Technology CU
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 25, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00249-CR

OCTAVIO PUENTE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-55240-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Osborne

Opinion by Justice Osborne

A jury convicted Octavio Puente for continuous sexual abuse of a child younger than 

fourteen years of age. The trial court assessed punishment at forty-three years’ imprisonment. On 

appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no 

arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy 

of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not 

file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting 

appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
–2–

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Leslie Osborne/_____________________

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

180249F.U05
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

OCTAVIO PUENTE, Appellant

No. 05-18-00249-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-55240-K.

Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne. 

Justices Myers and Molberg participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 25th day of January, 2019.
# C_2015205EN.01003801.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/38

---

Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Claudio Necci against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission

Necci

Commission

(Case T-211/15 P)

(2015/C 205/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Claudio Necci (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

| — | Annul the order of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the order of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission;

Necci

Commission

| — | Refer the matter back to the European Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the matter back to the European Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissed the action for annulment brought by the applicant on the ground of inadmissibility which it classified as ‘manifest’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissed the action for annulment brought by the applicant on the ground of inadmissibility which it classified as ‘manifest’.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the time-limit for bringing proceedings under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations started to run from receipt of the proposal for the bonus loading of the annuities and not from its acceptance by the member of staff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the time-limit for bringing proceedings under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations started to run from receipt of the proposal for the bonus loading of the annuities and not from its acceptance by the member of staff.

---
No. 54566.

#### Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 150021-K, etc. (Galveston).

*247Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the. galvanometers and parts thereof are similar in all material respects to the gradiom-eters, gravitymeters, and vertical field balances the subject of *Asiatic Petroleum Corp.*v. *United States*(19 Oust. Ct. 3, C. D. 1058), *American Askania Corp.*v. *United States*(20 id. 302, Abstract 52267), and *American Askania Corporations. United States*(21 id. 26, C. D. 1121), respectively, the claim at 15 percent under-paragraph 372, as modified, was sustained. Photoclinometer motors and parts-, thereof stipulated to be the same as the merchandise the subject of *Garrard Sales Corp.*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 369) were held dutiable at 15. percent under paragraph 353, as modified.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

----

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

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 Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Haste, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: June 30, 2004 |  /s/ Andrew Haste  |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                |                    |
|                | Andrew Haste            |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |

 

                                                                                                   

----

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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 Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Culmer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: June 30, 2004 | /s/ George Culmer       |
|---------------------|-------------------------|
|                |                    |
|                | George Culmer           |
|                | Chief Financial Officer |

                                  

----