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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 23, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RENÉ MADRID-APODACA,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-2171

(D.C. No. 2:13-CR-02515-JB-1)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

After René Madrid-Apodaca pleaded guilty to illegally reentering this

country after a prior deportation, he and the government agreed to a sentence of

between two and eight months. In considering the various sentencing factors

prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), however, the district court judged a nine

month sentence more appropriate. The court emphasized, among other things,

Mr. Madrid-Apodaca’s record of recidivism and the need for deterrence — noting

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
that Mr. Madrid-Apodaca had already been removed for illegally entering this

country five times, and that an eight month sentence he received for a prior

reentry failed to deter this reentry. Before us, Mr. Madrid-Apodaca has filed a

49-page brief arguing that the district court’s announced sentence, one month

more than he agreed to, is substantively unreasonable. But a district court’s

substantive judgment at sentencing is reviewed on appeal only under a highly

deferential abuse of discretion standard — a standard this court deems

presumptively satisfied where, as here, the district court’s sentence itself falls

below the range recommended by the advisory guidelines. See United States v.

Gutierrez-Gonzalez, 271 F. App’x 786, 788 (10th Cir. 2008); cf. United States v. 

Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1055 (10th Cir. 2006). After carefully reviewing Mr.

Madrid-Apodaca’s submission, we cannot conclude he has borne his burden of

overcoming that presumption and we thus affirm. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 2 -
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 15-1574 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

MIGDOEL BERRÍOS-BONILLA, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court issued on May 13, 2016, is amended 

as follows: 

On page 16, line 23, "domination" is replaced with "dominion"
**EXHIBIT
99.6**
 
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
 
  We
hereby consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the
"Annual Report") of Enerplus Resources Fund (the "Registrant"). We hereby
further consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report of the Registrant's
Renewal Annual Information Form dated March 14, 2005 for the year ended December
31, 2004, which document makes reference to our firm and our report entitled
"Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves of Enerplus Resources Fund (As of December
31, 2004)", **** dated
February 3, 2005, evaluating the Registrant's oil, natural gas and natural gas
liquids interests effective January 1, 2005.
 
 Calgary, Alberta,
      Canada
    SPROULE ASSOCIATES
      LIMITEDMarch
      14, 2005/s/
      Ken H. CrowtherKen H. Crowther, P.
      Eng.President
# C_2018112EN.01000302.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2018 — Schenker Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-263/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - International air freight forwarding services - Pricing agreement affecting the final price of the services))

(2018/C 112/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Schenker Ltd (represented by: F. Montag and M. Eisenbarth, Rechtsanwälte, and F. Hoseinian, advokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Schenker Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Schenker Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------
              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



            Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, the undersigned officer of GMX
Resources Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 30, 2006
                                       Ken L. Kenworthy, Sr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Chief Financial Officer
No. 51913.

#### James H. Rhodes & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 117358-K/340, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of new grass sponges the same in all material respects as those the subject of *James H. Rhodes & Co.*v. *United States*(18 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1045). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                              MEDAPHIS CORPORATION
 
     COMPUTATION OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                       MARCH 31,
                                                              ----------------------------
DESCRIPTION                                                       1997            1996
-----------                                                   ------------    ------------
                                                              (AS RESTATED    (AS RESTATED
                                                              SEE NOTE 8)     SEE NOTE 8)
<S>                                                           <C>             <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding during the period.......     72,235          70,434
Shares issuable upon assumed exercise of stock options, less
  amounts assumed repurchased under the treasury stock
  method....................................................         --           5,270
                                                                -------         -------
Total weighted average common stock and common stock
  equivalents outstanding during the period.................     72,235          75,704
                                                                =======         =======
Pro forma net income (loss).................................    $(3,064)        $ 9,424
                                                                =======         =======
Pro forma net income (loss) per common share................    $ (0.04)        $  0.12
                                                                =======         =======
</TABLE>
 
                                       32
**Exhibit23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3, File No. 333-111412, on Form S-8, File No.333-101490 and on Form S-8, File No. 333-128896, of our reports dated March 13, 2006, relating to the financialstatements of General Maritime Corporation, and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of General Maritime Corporation for the year ended December31, 2005.

 
| /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| New York, New York            |
| March 13, 2006                |

 

----
No. 53455.

protest 147370-K (New York).

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
# C_2015320EN.01003902.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/39

---

Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ffauf (ZARA)

(Case T-432/15)

(2015/C 320/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

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: Ffauf SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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 ‘ZARA’ — Community trade mark registration No 732 958

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 867/2014-2

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in particular regarding the revocation of the CTM registration No 732958 ‘ZARA’ for the challenged goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in particular regarding the revocation of the CTM registration No 732958 ‘ZARA’ for the challenged goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 42(2), 51(1)(a), 52(2) and 85(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 42(2), 51(1)(a), 52(2) and 85(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rules 22(3) and 22(4) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
### ~~ Ministry of Transport , - TE MANATU WAKA

IRBUSA-A 26 March 2010 Mr Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street SW Room 6402 Washington D.C. 20590 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Dear MrGretch Air New Zealand has advised that it proposes to perform a seventh freedom passenger charter between Brisbane and Las Vegas. The charter, using B74 7 aircraft, is to carry an Australian travel agency's staff to a private function. The current flight schedule would have the aircraft operate from Brisbane to Las Vegas on 16 July 2010. On 18 July, the aircraft would position from Las Vegas to Los Angeles for atechnical stop before continuing to Brisbane. This letter is to advise that New Zealand will approve similar requests submitted by United States carriers to operate seventh freedom passenger charters from New Zealand to third countries. Yours Sincerely

John Macilree Principal Adviser, Air Services

WVIJ\I\I.transpol"t.govt.nz HEAD OFFICE: PO Box 3175. Wellington. NewZealand. TEL: +644 4399000. FAX: +644 439 9001 AUCKLAND OFFICE: The Government Economic and Urban DevelopmentOffice. PO Box 106 238. Auckland City. NewZealand. TEL:.649985 4827. FAX: +64 9985 4849 CHRISTCHURCH OFFICE: PO Box3014. Christchurch. NewZealand. TEL: +64 33669304. FAX:.6433669317
**Copyright © 2014 American Water Works Association**

# Webinar Moderator No Image Available **2** 

### Randy Moore Vice President Market Development Utility Service Group Randy Moore has been with Utility Service Group (USG) since 1998 and is currently Vice President of Market Development. Randy travels nationwide to promote USG’s line of integrated sustainable products and services for potable water distribution systems. He is also responsible for identifying and developing new technologies and innovation for USG. Randy has more than (35) years of experience in industrial sales and marketing. In addition, he serves on several AWWA Committees and Councils: the AWWA D102 Revision Task Force (as a voting member), the Distribution System Water Quality Committee, the Distribution System Operations & Maintenance Committee, the Steel Tank Committee, the Manufacturers & Associates Council (MAC), and as the MAC liaison to the Technical & Educational Council.

# Panel of Experts
**3 Mark Johnson**  **Director, Metropolitan Water Operations and Maintenance**  **Massachusetts Water Resources Authority**  **Todd Brewer Assistant Manager**  **- Laboratories**  **City Utilities of Springfield, MO Andrew Hill**  **Project Manager Confluence Engineering** 

# Agenda

**4** I. Case Study on Asset Management and Impact on Water Quality II. Distribution System Optimization & Water Quality Management Efforts at City Utilities III. Main Cleaning– a Tool for Distribution System Water Quality and Asset Management Mark Johnson Todd Brewer

Andrew Hill

# Subject Overview • What does it really mean to say “water quality management and asset management working together”? • What would an example look like in a distribution system? **5**

# For Example... • Water Storage Tanks
**6**

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt. **Tank Asset Mgt**  **conditions maintained in an effective tank asset management program:**  **1. Safety Conditions**  **2. Sanitary Conditions** ***** **3. Security Conditions** ***** **4. Structural Conditions**  **5. Coatings Conditions** ***** *** Directly impacts water quality 7** 

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.
**8** 

### Vent Maintenance

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**9** 

### Roof Penetrations

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.
**10** 

### Roof Hatch

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**11** 

### Water Quality Impact

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**12** 

### Water Quality Impact

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.
**13** 

### Interior Coatings **Maintenance**

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**14** 

### Water Quality Impact

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**15** 

### Lack of Tank Mixing **Water Quality Impact**

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.
**16** 

### Sediment Removal

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.

**17** 

### Sediment Removal

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt.
**18** 

### Sediment Removal

# Asset Mgt. = WQ Mgt. **19**

# Poll Question #1 Have you ever experienced asset management impacting water quality management within your distribution system? a) Yes b) No **20**
Exhibit
      32(ii)





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


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Dialog Group, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Vincent
      DeCrescenzo, Sr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, 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:
      May 15, 2007


/s/
                    VincentDeCrescenzoVincent
                        DeCrescenzo, Sr.
                        CFO
(Reap. Dec. 10306)

Entry No. 916-D.

#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided August 2, 1962)

*Lawrence*<£• *Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olxvee, Chief Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for reap-praisement has been submitted for decision upon stipulation of counsel.

On the agreed facts, I find that export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, as it existed prior to the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise involved and that such values were the unit prices noted in red ink, net, packed, exclusive of the amounts noted on the invoice under the heading “Actual charges.”

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
 ACTION: Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institution effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This list (as updated from time to time in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    ) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992, issue of the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation website at 
                    *www.fdic.gov/​bank/​individual/​failed/​banklist.html,*
                     or contact the Chief, Receivership Oversight at 
                    *RO@fdic.gov*
                     or at Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, FDIC, 600 North Pearl Street, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75201. Institutions in Liquidation
[In alphabetical order]
FDIC Ref. No.
Bank name
City
State
Date closed10545
Citizens Bank
Sac City
IA
11/03/2023
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on November 6, 2023. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2023-24862 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                               (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)


     Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  (18
U.S.C.ss.1350),  the  undersigned,  Alan  Irwin,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and
President  of  Crown  International,  Inc./FL,  a  Florida  corporation  (the
"Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  his  knowledge,  that:

     The  Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 of the
Company  (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the  Report  fairly  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and  results  of  operations  of  the  Company.


Date:    July,11 2003                   By:  /s/  Alan Irwin
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Alan  Irwin
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STEVEN A. MARKS AND ERIN L. NO. 2021 CW 1333

MARKS

VERSUS

UNITED PROPERTY & CASUALTY JANUARY 31, 2022

INSURANCE COMPANY

In Re: United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, applying

for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, 

Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2019- 10- 197. 

BEFORE: McDONALD, LANIER, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. This writ application fails to

comply with Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 4- 

5( B), ( C)( 6), ( 8), and ( 11) because the attached documents and

exhibits are not identified and consecutively numbered; it does

not include a signed copy of the judgment at issue; it does not

contain a copy of the petition; and it does not contain a

copy

of the notice of intent or the return date order. In addition, 

in the event a new writ application is filed, this court

requires a copy of the pertinent hearing transcript. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an

application for rehearing will not be considered. Uniform Rules

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 and 4- 9. 

In the event relator seeks to file a new application with

this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, 

including the missing items noted above, and must comply with

Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 12. 2. Any

new application must be filed on or before March 3, 2022, and

must contain a copy of this ruling. 

JMM

WIL

EW

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ZL)J; Y; I Q . , T) 

DEPUTY CBERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT