alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan 

Item #28

28.0 

Deterministic projections for each year in the extended period of 

• the value of plan assets 

• the plan’s accrued liability, and 

• the plan’s funded percentage 

See Section 6.05. 

The information is provided in document number 26.1 (Application under ERISA Section 305(e)(9) and 

IRC Section 432(e)(9)).
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

January 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50774

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HOMERO ROCHA-GUTIERREZ, also

known as Jose Homero Rocha,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-77-ALL

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Homero Rocha-Gutierrez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Rocha-Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have
No. 03-50774

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Rocha-Gutierrez maintains that

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the maximum term of supervised release which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Rocha-Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5152

ARTHUR J. DAVIDSON, BARBARA J. DAVIDSON, VIRGIL D. DEVRIES,

LOIS A. DEVRIES, WAYNE HILL, KATHRYN HILL, ROBERT M. STALNAKER,

PATSY STALNAKER, J. BRYCE WYNNE, and MARY A. WYNNE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 07-CV-196, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 6, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 17 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk ustailhorn

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20

APR 17 2009

mpg rititashu

CLERK
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30731]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2643]


The Office of Operations (A/OPR); 60-Day Notice of Proposed 
Information Collection; Department of State Acquisition Regulation 
(DOSAR)

SUMMARY: The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. 
The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in 
the Federal Register preceding submission to OMB. This process is 
conducted in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The following summarizes the information collection proposal 
submitted to OMB:
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Originating Office: The Office of Operations (A/OPR).
    Title of Information Collection: Department of State Acquisition 
Regulation (DOSAR).
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Form Number: OMB #1405-0050.
    Respondents: Prospective government contractors.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,000.
    Average Hours Per Response: 128 hours.
    Total Estimated Burden: 225,302.5 hours.
    Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to--
    <bullet> Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of the agency functions.
    <bullet> Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection.
    <bullet> Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected.
    <bullet> Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of technology.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Comments regarding the collection listed in 
this notice or requests for copies of the proposed collection and 
supporting documents should be directed to Charles S. Cunningham, 
Directives Management Branch, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 
20520, (202) 647-0596.

    Dated: November 4, 1997.
Eliza McClenaghan,
Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-30731 Filed 11-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 15, 2017

p1115

Order 

Clerk

November 15, 2017

154829

DEBORAH LYNN FOSTER,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee,

v SC: 154829

COA: 324853

Dickinson CC: 07-015064-DM

RAY JAMES FOSTER,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Howell v 

Howell, ___ US ___; 137 S Ct 400; 197 L Ed 2d 781 (2017).
NUMBER 13-19-00601- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

FRANCISCO EZEQUIEL LOPEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 206th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's fifth and sixth motion for extension of 

time to file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on August 17, 2020.

On January 28, 2021, we abated this matter to address access to sealed portions of the 

record and subsequently ordered the brief due on April 14, 2021. On March 22, 2021, the 
2

clerk of the court notified appellant that no further extensions will be granted absent new 

and/or exigent circumstances.

The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant’s seventh and 

eighth motions for extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted 

in this cause, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's motions for 

extension of time to file the brief should be granted with order. The Court looks with 

disfavor upon the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter and 

further motions for extension of time will not be granted absent new and/or exigent 

circumstances.

Accordingly, appellant's fifth and sixth motions for extension of time to file the brief 

are each hereby GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the 

Honorable Victoria Guerra, counsel for appellant, file the appellate brief with this 

Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2021 If the Honorable Victoria Guerra fails 

to file the appellate brief with this Court on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 19, 2021, 

then the Honorable Victoria Guerra is ORDERED to appear in person on May 20, 

2021 at 10:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, located at 

the Hidalgo County Court Annex III at 100 E. Cano, 5th floor, Edinburg, Texas, to 

show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

12th day of May, 2021.
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   May  6,      2009 | By:    | /s/      Jeffry E.      Sterba                     |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |   | Jeffry      E. Sterba                                                                                                                                  |
|                                               |   | Chairman      and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                              |
|                                               |   | PNM      Resources, Inc.                                                                                                                               |
|                                               |   |                                                                                                                                                   |

----
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

335 

KA 12-01520 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN M. WAPNIEWSKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW (GREGORY A. KILBURN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael F.

Griffith, J.), rendered July 24, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a

controlled substance in the third degree and welfare fraud in the

fifth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, welfare fraud in the fifth

degree (Penal Law § 158.05). Defendant’s valid waiver of the right to

appeal encompasses his contention that County Court erred in directing

him to pay a specified amount of restitution without conducting a

hearing “inasmuch as that amount was an explicit part of defendant’s

agreed-upon plea bargain” (People v Taylor, 70 AD3d 1121, 1122, lv

denied 14 NY3d 845; see People v Thomas, 77 AD3d 1325, 1326, lv denied

16 NY3d 800). 

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63089

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 98–09]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance

Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified text of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104–

164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmitted 98–09,

with attached transmittal, policy

justification, Section 620C(d) of the

Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and

sensitivity of technology pages.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
63090 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63091
63092 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 26, 1997 / Notices 63093

[FR Doc. 97–30985 Filed 11–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
#### GARDEN STATE PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The DIRECTOR OF the DADE COUNTY BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT et al., Appellees.

No. 73-1031.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1974.

Bretan, Marks, Attias & Raskin, Miami, for appellant.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and Alan S. Gold, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit court seeking review of a zoning decision of the Board of County Commissioners of Metropolitan Dade County. No brief or record was filed. Appellant secured in the circuit court several successive extensions of time to file the brief and record. The last extension expired June 16, 1973. Thereafter, appellant moved for another extension upon the sole ground that counsel was too busy. The County moved to dismiss the petition. The brief and record were filed before a hearing could be had on the motion. Nevertheless, the court denied the last requested extension and dismissed the petition. No abuse of discretion is shown. We affirm. See Monroe-Jackson Hospital, Inc. v. Scarane, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 6.

Affirmed.
#### In re Pedro Jose NAVARRO, Application for License as a Private Investigative Agency.

No. 70-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Clifford Jerome ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60286-60287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29490]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-410]


Long Island Lighting Company; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, 
Unit No. 2

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(the Commission) is considering the issuance of an Order approving, 
under 10 CFR 50.80, an application regarding an indirect transfer of 
control of ownership and possessory rights held by Long Island Lighting 
Company (LILCO) under the operating license for Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station, Unit No. 2 (NMP2). The indirect transfer would be to the Long 
Island Power Authority (LIPA). LILCO is licensed by the Commission to 
own and possess an 18 percent interest in NMP2.
    By letter dated September 8, 1997, LILCO informed the Commission 
that LIPA plans to acquire LILCO by purchasing its stock through a cash 
merger, at a time when LILCO consists of its electric transmission and 
distribution system, its retail electric business, substantially all of 
its electric regulatory assets, and its 18 percent share of NMP2. LILCO 
thereby would become a subsidiary of LIPA. After this restructuring, 
LILCO will continue to exist as an ``electric utility'' as defined in 
10 CFR 50.2 providing the same electric utility services it did 
immediately prior to the restructuring. LILCO will continue to be a 
licensee of NMP2, and no direct transfer of the operating license or 
interests in the station will result from the proposed restructuring. 
The transaction would not involve any change to either the management 
organization or technical personnel of Niagara Mohawk Power 
Corporation, which is responsible for operating and maintaining NMP2.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, the Commission may approve the transfer 
of control of a license after notice to interested persons. Such 
approval is contingent upon the Commission's determination that the 
holder of the license following the transfer is qualified to hold the 
license and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable 
provisions of law, regulations, and orders of the Commission.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
LILCO letter dated September 8, 1997, as supplemented October 8, 1997. 
These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room

[[Page 60287]]

located at the Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, 
New York 13126.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darl S. Hood,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-29490 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of China Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Baizhong Xue, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Date:
June 2, 2010



|       |  |                                     
|------ |  | ------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Baizhong Xue                    
|Name:  |  | Baizhong Xue                        
|Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.3

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 Cenovus Energy Inc. (the Company) on Form 40F for the year ended
December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian C. Ferguson, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 16, 2017



|    |  |                                     |  | 
|--- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Brian C. Ferguson               |  | 
|    |  | Brian C. Ferguson                   |  | 
|    |  | President & Chief Executive Officer |  |
#### Raymond STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. U-25.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1974.

Carlton P. Maddox, of Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer & Sulik, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*84PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his conviction and sentence after being found guilty by a jury on charges of possession of recently stolen property.

We have given full consideration to the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. It appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that reversible error was committed in the proceedings below, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed. '

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., JOHNSON, J.. and WIGGINTON, Associate Judge, concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2021

No. 04-20-00228-CR

Jorge RODRIGUEZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CRB000030D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due by December 30, 2020, but was not filed. On 

January 8, 2021, we ordered appellant to file his brief or a motion for extension of time by 

January 25, 2021. In that order, we cautioned appellant that if we did not receive a brief or an 

extension of time by that date, we would abate the appeal to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). When the brief was not filed, the Clerk of the Court 

contacted appellant on February 12, 2021 reminding appellant of the late brief, and appellant 

informed the Clerk that he would file the brief by February 16, 2021. On February 19, 2021, 

appellant emailed the court and stated he had been unable to file the brief due to Winter Storm 

Uri, and he would file the brief by February 22, 2021. On February 26, 2021 appellant filed a 

motion requesting a seven day extension of time to file the brief.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for an extension and ORDER

appellant to file the brief by March 5, 2021. If appellant fails to file the brief by that date, then 

we will order the appeal abated and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine 

whether appellant has abandoned the appeal. See id.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court