alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PrimePlayer Incorporated for the                quarter ended June 30, 2004 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of PrimePlayer                Incorporated. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/   Alexander                Gilliland                                   |   |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |  Alexander                Gilliland                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director                                                                                                                                                                        |
|  Date:     |  May                25, 2006                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
#### Joseph KAVANAUGH, et ux. v. Warren LONG, M.D.

No. 97-C-2554.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Kavanaugh, Joseph C.;—Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 29380-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 389,336-B.

Denied.

LEMMON, JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would grant the writ.

VICTORY, J., not on panel; recused.
#### George S. Foster v. G. L. Harrington. Joseph C. Foster v. Charles H. Harrington.

No. 16,077.

No. 16,078.

Error from Lane district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed May 8, 1909.

Affirmed.

*D. A. Banta,*for the plaintiffs in error.

*J. S. Simmons,*for the defendants in error.

*Per Curiam:*

These cases were submitted together. The judgments are affirmed upon the authority of *Jones v. Hickey, ante,*p. 109, *Jones v. Gibbons, ante,*p. 109, *Petersilie v. McLachlin, ante,*p. 176, and *Reitler v. Harris, ante,*p. 148.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60029

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHARLES L. YOUNG;

TYRONE EUGENE GREEN,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:98-CR-10-2-WS

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

December 15, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Charles L. Young and Tyrone Eugene Green appeal their

convictions following a jury trial for armed bank robbery, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and (d), and for using and

carrying a firearm in relation to a bank robbery, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

Their argument that the district court erred in denying

their motion to suppress the testimony of Government witnesses

because the Government procured the testimony with promises of 
No. 99-60029

-2-

more lenient sentences, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), is

foreclosed by United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir.

1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999). The appellants’

argument that the district court erred in denying their motion

for a mistrial is also without merit. 

The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Coveney, 995 F.2d 578, 584 (5th

Cir. 1993). The appellants contend that, if Juror No. 17, who

was excused by the trial judge after the jury had been selected,

had been honest in her answers during voir dire, they would have

been able to challenge her for cause and would have been able to

use their alternate strike to challenge Juror No. 34, whom they

contend was unfavorable to them. However, the appellants chose

to exercise all of their peremptory strikes prior to reaching

Juror No. 34, and an earlier dismissal for cause of Juror No. 17

would have had no effect on the number of peremptory strikes they

had or used. 

To the extent that the appellants argue that their Sixth

Amendment rights were violated by having a juror serve who should

have been excused for cause, the argument is without merit

because they did not challenge the juror for cause nor do they

allege that he was biased or incapable of performing his duties

in accordance with his instructions and oath. See Wainwright v.

Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985).

The appellants have failed to demonstrate any error on the

district court’s part. Accordingly, the district court’s

judgments are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.53

AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE  TO THE  UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION, INC.  EMPLOYEES' SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN

WHEREAS, Universal Compression, Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Universal Compression, Inc. Employees' Supplemental Savings Plan, effective
July 1, 1998 (the "Plan");

WHEREAS,
Section 11.1 of the Plan reserves to the Company the right to amend the Plan by action of its Board of Directors (the "Board"); and

WHEREAS,
the Board has approved the amendment to the Plan to provide that each eligible employee executing a Supplemental Salary Deferral Agreement may defer a percentage of his
compensation in a whole percentage amount not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%);

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of this amendment by the Company, the undersigned officer being duly authorized has signed this amendment this 1st day
of January, 2002, to be effective as of January 1, 2002.

| |  | UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION, INC.
| |  | ---------------------------
| |  | By:                        
| |  | Name:                      
| |  | Title:                     

---

QuickLinks
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1844 

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 

Management are reviewed in a timely manner. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 

Mr. HELLER (for himself, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEE, Mr. THUNE, Mr. HOEVEN, 

Mr. ENZI, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the 

Bureau of Land Management are reviewed in a timely 

manner. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REVIEW OF CERTAIN FEDERAL REGISTER NO4 TICES. 

5 If, by the date that is 45 days after the date on which 

6 a State Bureau of Land Management office has submitted 

7 a Federal Register notice to the Washington, DC, office 

8 of the Bureau of Land Management for Department of 

9 Interior review, the review has not been completed— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1844 IS

1 (1) the notice shall consider to be approved; 

2 and 

3 (2) the State Bureau of Land Management of4 fice shall immediately forward the notice to the Fed5 eral Register for publication. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*Anthony Garcia, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 23, 1966.

*Aaron E. Koota, District Attorney (Raymond J. Scanlan*and *Harry Brodbar*of counsel), for appellant. No appearance for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant failed to show that he had any interest in the premises searched so as to establish his standing as one aggrieved thereby. Moreover, the police officer, in the performance of his duties, had a right to enter the public hallway of the multiple dwelling here involved as of right. *(Cf. Beedenbender*v. *Midtown Props.,*4 A D 2d 276). Common passageways, not under the domain of any particular occupant, such as the one here, do not come within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the evidence obtained by the police officer while legally on the premises without a search warrant is admissible and the motion to suppress should not have been granted *(Burks*v. *United States,*287 F. 2d 117, cert. den. 369 U. S. 841; *United States*v. *Buchner,*164 F Supp. 836, affid. 268 F. 2d 891, cert. den. 359 U. S. 908; *People*v. *Capone,*35 Misc 2d 1071).

The order should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts and motion to suppress evidence denied.

Margett, Brenner and Olliffe, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             399
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,209
<INVENTORY>                                      6,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,385
<PP&E>                                          16,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,936
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,007
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,392)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,936
<SALES>                                         93,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,930
<CGS>                                           61,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                77,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,640)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (36,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,410)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,685)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.86


</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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              Fund. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                      |
|                                                                                      |
| Name:                 /s/ Randall                D. Holmes                           |
| Title: Chief                Executive Officer                                        |
| Date:                 February 28, 2006                                              |
|                                                                                      |
|                                                                                      |
|                                                                                      |
| Name:                 /s/ Douglas                R. Wilson                           |
| Title:                Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:                 February 28, 2006                                              |
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9615]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 31, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on November 7, 2006, (71 FR 65135), Siegfried (USA), Inc., 
Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by 
letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed in schedule I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Siegfried (USA), Inc. to manufacture the listed basic class of 
controlled substance is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Siegfried (USA), Inc. to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: May 14, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-9615 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### H. R. Lockwood for a/c of American Import Co. *v.*United States

No. 6177.

Invoice dated Mexico, D. F., February 8, 1943.

Certified February 8,1943.

Entered at Laredo, Tex., March 12, 1943.

Entry No. 3877.

(Decided June 22, 1945)

*Philip Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Speetor,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

In this appeal for reappraisement of miniature boxing gloves exported from Mexico and entered at the port of Laredo, Tex., counsel have stipulated that the item of buying commission, shown on the consular invoice in the amount of $45.99 (Mexican currency) was inadvertently included in the entered value, and that the correct value for the merchandise is .the entered value, less the said buying commission.

Accordingly, I hold the value of the goods to be as agreed between the parties, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-7593.

#### Somers *v.*Northwest Iowa Mental Health Center et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
* 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

October 26, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41755

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO ELIUD GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-269-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Eliud Garza pleaded guilty to being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

The district court determined that Garza was an armed career

criminal and sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 180 months

in prison pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).

Garza argues that the district court erred in determining

that his Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was a

qualifying violent felony conviction for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
No. 04-41755

-2-

§ 924(e). Garza contends that this court’s holding to the

contrary in United States v. Silva, 957 F.2d 157, 162 (5th Cir.

1992), was undercut by Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254

(2005). Shepard did not undercut Silva; Shepard extended the

holding of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), to cases

in the guilty-plea context and clarified which documents could be

considered when determining whether a prior conviction is for a

generic burglary that can be used to enhance a sentence under the

Armed Career Criminal Act. See Shepard 125 S. Ct. at 1263. 

Alternatively, Garza concedes that his argument is foreclosed by

Silva, but he nevertheless raises it here to preserve it for

further review.

Garza argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under

18 U.S.C. § 924(e) because the indictment did not contain any

information regarding his prior convictions and because the fact

of those convictions were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. 

See United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Affleck, 861 F.2d 97, 99 (5th Cir. 1988). He

further concedes that is argument is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Garza is raising

the issue to preserve it for possible further review.

Garza also argues that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional because it does not require a

substantial effect on interstate commerce and is thus an improper
No. 04-41755

-3-

exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. This

argument is unavailing. “This court has repeatedly emphasized

that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to

question.” United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.

1999). Garza concedes that his argument is foreclosed and raises

it to preserve it for further possible review.

AFFIRMED.
No. 48183.

#### Protest 89517-K of Frankie Clara Young (Tampa).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was found that the protest was filed prior to the liquidation of the entry and the Government attorney moved for the dismissal of it under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. In accordance therewith motion 'to dismiss without prejudice was granted.
No. 44343.

#### Protests 787903-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303) the Rockingham earthenware in question was held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 210 as claimed.
Before the First Division,

December 7, 1950

No. 54939.

#### Wm. Wackenhuth & Son *v.*United States,

protest 159359-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those-the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. 43193.

#### Protest 990496-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of zipper bags in chief value of metal similar to those the subject of Abstract 37566. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
No. 40479.

#### Protests 908826-G, etc., of John A. Alban & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1829 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1829

  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to empower the States to set the 
     maximum annual percentage rates applicable to consumer credit 
                 transactions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 2011

 Mr. Whitehouse (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Begich, Mr. Franken, Mr. 
    Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to empower the States to set the 
     maximum annual percentage rates applicable to consumer credit 
                 transactions, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Empowering States' Rights To Protect 
Consumers Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITS ON ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES.

    Chapter 2 of the Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 141. LIMITS ON ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the annual percentage 
rate applicable to any consumer credit transaction (other than a 
residential mortgage transaction), including any fees associated with 
such a transaction, may not exceed the maximum rate permitted by the 
laws of the State in which the consumer resides.''.
                                 <all>
```