alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Aeromagnetic Surveys in Yukon Flats Alaska, A Website for the Distribution of Data

| *By***Philip J. Brown** |
|-------------------------|

**U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-319**

| **Version 1.0** |
|-----------------|

----

| The text of this report is presented here in Portable Document Format. The latest    version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it.    If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge,    click here . |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| OFR-03-319 HTML file | (This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.) |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2003/ofr-03-319/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Sat Jan 12 23:14 EDT 2013 |  |

----
|Exhibit 99.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer of


Agere Systems Inc.


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Agere Systems Inc. (Agere) hereby certifies that:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | 1. |  | Ageres
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2002, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Agere.
| |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|/s/ JOHN T. DICKSON

John T. Dickson
Chief Executive Officer
        December 12, 2002
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00305-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.K.P., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA01650

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

Appellant is unable to afford payment of costs; no costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED February 3, 2021.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose LOMELI-DIAZ, aka, Alberto Cuevas-Diaz, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 00-50765.

D.C. No. CR-00-02456-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*581Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Lomeli-Diaz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and he was sentenced to 57 months in prison pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He appeals this sentence. The facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties; they are not restated herein except as necessary. We affirm.

The maximum penalty for illegal reentry is two years in prison, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), unless one of the enhancements in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) applies. One of these enhancements, which increases the maximum penalty for illegal reentry to twenty years if the defendant had been previously convicted of an aggravated felony at the time of his removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), applies in this case.

The sentence Lomeli-Diaz challenges in this appeal is well within the twenty year maximum provided for in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Nonetheless, he argues that, because his prior conviction was neither charged in the indictment for illegal reentry nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt before the jury in this case, it violated the Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment to increase, on the basis of his prior conviction, the maximum sentence he could receive from two to twenty years.

The Supreme Court rejected this very argument in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although some doubt was cast upon the continued viability of *Almendarez-Torres*by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have held that *Almendarez-Torres*remains good law. *United States v.. Pacheco-Zepeda,*2000 WL 33156290, at *4-*5 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, we have held that *Almendarez-Torres*is not limited to its facts, and have extended it to defendants who, like Lomeli-Diaz, did not admit to their prior convictions at the time they pleaded guilty. *United States v. Arellano-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian R. Ervine,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of EvolvingSystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian R. Ervine                                                          |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |
| May 7, 2009                                                         |

 

 

This certificationis furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











 



 
 





Exhibit 4.13

    
    







To the Securities Commission or similar regulatory authority in each of the provinces of Canada

 





Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

 





TransCanada Corporation (the "Company")







        We refer to the base shelf short form prospectus of the above Company dated July 2, 2008 relating to the sale and issue of common shares, first preferred shares, second preferred
shares and subscription receipts of the Company.








        We consent to the use, through incorporation by reference in the above mentioned prospectus, of our report dated February 25, 2008 to the shareholders of the Company on the
following financial statements:

 





Consolidated
balance sheets as at December 31, 2007 and 2006;

 






Consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, accumulated other comprehensive income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007.









        We
also consent to the use, through incorporation by reference in the above mentioned prospectus, of our report dated February 25, 2008 to the directors of the Company on the
related supplemental note entitled "Reconciliation to United States GAAP" as at December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007.

 






        We report that we have read the base shelf short form prospectus and all information specifically incorporated by reference therein and have no reason to believe that there are any
misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from the consolidated financial statements upon which we have reported or that are within our knowledge as a result of our
audit of such consolidated financial statements.

 





        This letter is provided solely for the purpose of assisting the securities regulatory authorities to which it is addressed in discharging their responsibilities and should not be used
for any other purpose. Any use that a third party makes of this letter, or any reliance or decisions based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. We accept no responsibility for loss or
damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this letter.

 





Yours very truly,


 



	 








(Signed) KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

 







Calgary, Canada

July 2, 2008

 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.13
--

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

ANTHONY SPRUILL 

USM#59683-066 

. ;I, AND NOW this t/ .,, 

CRIMINAL NG. 05-532-1 

ORDER 

, 2015, pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and by agreement of the 

parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the term of imprisonment in this case is reduced to 

327months, effective November 1, 2015. Any and all pending pro se motions related to 

Amendment 782 are moot and hereby DISMISSED. 

Case 2:05-cr-00532-RBS Document 125 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0764 FCD DAD P

vs.

D. RAMEREZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court

has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not

find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will

therefore be denied.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 53 Filed 06/05/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 motion for

appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: June 5, 2006.

DAD:13:bb

greg0764.31

Case 2:04-cv-00764-FCD-DAD Document 53 Filed 06/05/06 Page 2 of 2
**AMENDMENT TO THE BANKBOSTON CORPORATION1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS(EFFECTIVE AS OF OCTOBER 16, 2001))**

          The third and fourth sentences of Section 6(b) of the Plan are hereby amended to read in their entirety as follows:

|   | For purposes of the Plan, "Fair Market Value," in the case of a Share on a particular day, means the volume weighted average price of a Share of Common Stock for that day, as reported by Bloomberg, Inc. as of 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on that day (or at the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange, if earlier) or, if Bloomberg, Inc. does not report a volume weighted average price of the Common Stock for that day, for the last preceding day on which such the volume weighted average price of the Common Stock is so reported. If Bloomberg, Inc. or any successor of Bloomberg, Inc. ceases to report volume weighted average prices, the Committee shall adopt another appropriate method of determining Fair Market Value. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 64091.

protests 326648-K, etc. (New York).

#### Walter Hatches, Inc., and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N.Y., Inc. *v.*United States,

*432Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of candlesticks similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Mottahedeh Creations, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 9, C.D. 2095), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Check Image Report

To view a Check Image report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Check Processing Reports. The View Check Processing 

Reports page appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click Check Image Report. The Check Image Report page 

appears.

3. Enter the search criteria for the report you would like to view.

• Under Add IRNs to the list, enter the Individual Record Numbers (IRN) for the 

checks you would like to view.

• IRNs are between 20 and 32 alphanumeric characters in length and can contain the 

following characters:

• The special characters of ', _, #, @, and -, surrounded by only alpha characters

• The special characters of $ and |, surrounded by alphanumeric characters

• To enter multiple IRNs, separate each IRN by a space and/or comma.

• Check images for IRNs belonging to neutralized OTC Endpoints can be retrieved in 

the Check Image Report. These images can be retrieved by Agency Managers, 

Check Capture Administrators, View Reports, Master Verification Database (MVD) 

Editors, or MVD Viewers who are provisioned to:

• An OTC Endpoint level higher than the neutralized OTC Endpoint associated 

with the images

• The highest level OTC Endpoints associated with the images

4. Click Add to IRN List.

5. Under List of IRNs, check the check box(es) of the IRN(s) you would like to submit.

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

6. Click Submit. Check image(s) appear on the same page as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Click Submit to View Check Image

• Click Clear to clear all data fields and reset to the default selections.

• Click Cancel to return to the OTCnet Home Page. No data will be saved.

Additional Buttons
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Ce rt of Se rvice Res ponse 9 -15- 03.wpd

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, PAUL A. KETTUNEN, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

Reply of Defendants SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical Technologies and Trans Ocean

Maritime Services, Inc. to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgement, was served

on September 15, 2003, via US mail on the following attorneys:

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire

Rawle & Henderson

The Widener Bldg.

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(Inchcape Shipping)

A. Robert Degen, Esquire

Fox Rothschild O’Brien

& Frankel

2000 Market St. - 10th Fl.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(Kent Line International)

Thomas More Holland, Esquire

Grace Hall

1522 Locust St.

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(Plaintiff)

___________________________________

PAUL A. KETTUNEN, ESQUIRE 

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 55-2 Filed 09/15/2003 Page 1 of 1
No. 64099.

protest 59/17592 (Los Angeles).

#### The Milford Co. of California, by: John L. Westland & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1

 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States Senior District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

__________

No. 99-1215

___________

Christy Renee Kelly, *

*

 Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

 vs. * Appeal from the United

* States District Court

Richard C. Sweetland, Ph.D., * for the Western District

individually; Richard C. Sweetland, * of Missouri

Ph.D., Inc.; Bill D. Gies, Ph.D. *

*

 Defendants - Appellees. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

__________

Submitted: September 15, 1999

 Filed: October 7, 1999 

__________

Before McMILLIAN, MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1 District Judge.

_________

PER CURIAM.
2

 The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

2

Christy Renee Kelly appeals from the district court’s2 dismissal of her lawsuit

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Kelly was a party to a state court custody and

visitation proceeding in which two psychologists (defendants here) were appointed to

provide psychological services and assist the court in reaching its decisions. Kelly’s

complaint contained eleven counts including negligence, intentional infliction of

emotional distress, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed

her claims, holding that the defendants were entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because

Kelly’s pleadings failed to allege any misconduct outside the scope of the

psychologists’ court appointed duties. We agree. We also conclude that a

comprehensive opinion in this case would lack precedential value and therefore affirm

the dismissal without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

 A true copy.

 Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
07.03 Download and Install Firmware
(Reap. Dec. 10998)

#### Hemisphere International Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. N-474.

(Decided June 9, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> 5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

*692Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-2701

CHRISTOPHER MUNOZ,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on May 29, 2003 is

corrected as follows:

On page 3, line 14, change "F.2d" to "F.3d"
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 19

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 61

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 3 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 4 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 5 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 6 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 7 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 8 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 9 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 10 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 11 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 12 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 13 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 14 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 15 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 16 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 17 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 18 of 19
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 61 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 19 of 19