alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 99-40868

-1-

 

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40868

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMIRO ZAMORA-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-99-CR-167-1

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

April 14, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramiro

Zamora-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Zamora-Diaz has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but

has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED.
#### Harriett POLLAK, Petitioner, v. Irvin POLLAK, Respondent.

No. 44326.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 282 So.2d 30.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, Mc-CAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2766

HENRY T. SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND; COURT OF APPEALS OF

MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA95-2216-DKC)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry T. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his

motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v.

Maryland, No. CA-95-2216-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 11, 1995; Sept. 13, 1995;

Oct. 11, 1995). We deny Appellant's motions for sanctions and

judicial notice. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

** **

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 27,2010 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *April 27,2010* | * * | By:                                               | */s/Peter M. Folger* |
|----------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
| Date                 |     | Peter M. Folger                                   |
|                 |     | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shallit be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
Exhibit 12





AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Unaudited)







|                                                   | Three Months Ended     |          | Nine Months Ended
|-------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------- | -----------------
|                                                   | September 30,          |          | September 30,    
|                                                   | 2005                   | 2004     |                  
|                                                   | (dollars in thousands)
|Earnings:
Income before provision for income taxes | $163,662               | $182,074 |                  
|Interest expense                                   | 238,625                | 167,518  |                  
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 4,921                  | 4,541    |                  
|Total earnings                                     | $407,208               | $354,133 |                  
|Fixed charges:
Interest expense                    | $238,625               | $167,518 |                  
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 4,921                  | 4,541    |                  
|Total fixed charges                                | $243,546               | $172,059 |                  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 | 1.67                   | 2.06     |                  



34
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months EndedSix Months EndedJune 30,June 30,(dollars in thousands)2008200720082007Earnings:
(Loss) income before (credit) provision for income
taxes$ (64,182)$  57,332$(115,309)$  67,686Interest expense300,316309,622617,295620,059Implicit interest in rents8,1625,43413,84610,926Total earnings$244,296$372,388$ 515,832$698,671Fixed charges:
Interest expense$300,316$309,622$ 617,295$620,059Implicit interest in rents8,1625,43413,84610,926Total fixed charges$308,478$315,056$ 631,141$630,985Ratio of earnings to fixed charges0.791.180.821.11    45
1 The HONORABLE THOMAS M. SHANAHAN, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. ___________ No. 95-4045

___________ Noe Martinez-Raga, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Immigration and Naturalization * Service, District Director, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 6, 1996 Filed: August 20, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Noe Martinez-Raga appeals from the district court's 1 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct. We do not consider Martinez-Raga's argument that he is eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), as he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2 A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.27
SCOPE OF WORK: n/a CAF NO.: 001 DATE: Feb. 28, 2011
P.O. NO.: DESCRIPTION: SELLER:
P.O. # E-00010 Moly033.01 Circuit & Phase 2 Mixers Quinn Process Equipment Co.
PROCUREMENT: 1) COMPLETE SUMMARY OF CHANGE 2) ATTACH BACKUP DOCUMENTATION 3) FORWARD CAF TO PROJ. ENGINEERING
SUMMARY OF CHANGE: 1) Addition of secondary circuit mixers. 2) Revising circuit design.
COST IMPACT SCHEDULE IMPACT
ORIGINAL P.O. AMOUNT: $21,437,853.00 SCHEDULE EXTENSION: wks.
TOTAL PREVIOUS CHANGES: $0.00 SCHEDULE REDUCTION: wks.
AMOUNT THIS CAF: $4,553,920.00 NEW P.O. COMPLETION DATE: Oct 2, 2012
REVISED P.O. AMOUNT: $25,991,773.00
(THE CHANGES IN THIS CAF WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO P.O. CHANGE ORDER NO.: 001 )
BUYER: /s/ Charlet Davis DATE: Feb. 28, 2011
ENGINEERING: 1) COMPLETE DESCRIPTION AND REASON FOR CHANGE 2) FORWARD CAF TO PROJECT CONTROLS
DESCRIPTION AND REASON FOR CHANGE: Addition of Phase 2 mixers.
Y N
TECHNICAL CHANGES APPROVED: x
REVISED EPR TO BE ISSUED:
PROJECT CONTROLS: 1) ADD BUDGET INFORMATION 2) FORWARD CAF TO PROJECT MANAGER
BUDGET CHANGE THIS CAF FORECAST FINAL VARIANCE commited to date REASON FOR VARIANCE
COMMENTS: n/a
COST CODE n/a PROJECT CONTROLS n/a DATE: n/a
/s/ Marc Privitera 2/28/11 /s/ Samar Adranly 2/28/11
PROJECT ENGINEER DATE PROJECT CONTROLS MANAGER, SAMAR ADRANLY
/s/ Todd Hancock
DATE
2/28/11
/s/ Charlet Davis
2/28/11
PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGER, CHARLET DAVIS
/s/ John Burba DATE
2/28/11 PROGRAM MANAGER, TODD HANCOCK
/s/ Brock OKelley DATE
2/28/11
MOLYCORP, DR. JOHN BURBA DATE MOLYCORP, BROCK OKELLEY DATE
RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO PROCUREMENT TO COMMIT AWARD
#### A & P BAKERY SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Respondent.

No. 40486.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 73.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, Me CAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.0



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

1.        Laservision (Europe) Limited
          --  incorporated under the laws of England;

2.        Laser Vision Centres Limited 
          -- incorporated under the laws of England;

3.        Laser Vision Limited
          -- incorporated under the laws of England;

4.        Laservision Harley Street Limited 
          -- incorporated under the laws of England 
          -- doing business under the name Harley Street Laser Vision Centre;

5.        LVCI Management (Quebec) Inc.
          --  incorporated under the Quebec Companies Act in the Province of 
          Quebec, Canada;

6.        LVCI Management (B.C.) Inc.;
          --  incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia;

7.        LVCI Management (Ontario) Inc.;
          --  incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada;
          --  doing business under the name St. Catharines Laser Vision Center;

8.        Laser Vision Centers (Calgary) Inc.;
          --  incorporated under the Business Corporations Act (Alberta), in the
          Province of Alberta, Canada

9.        LVCI Holdings, Inc.
          -- incorporated under the laws of Delaware
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Advocacy When courts, government offices, or other organizations consider cases or policy decisions that affect consumers or competition, the FTC may offer insight through amicus briefs or advocacy letters. In these matters, the FTC provides its expertise and advocates for policies that protect consumers and promote competition.

In addition, companies, industry groups, consumer organizations, and others petition the FTC to approve merger remedies, and to revise rule-makings, initiate investigations, or take other action.

The Office of Policy Planning helps to guide the agency’s advocacy and policy work and the Office of General Counsel’s amicus briefs provide the courts with the agency’s perspective on various issues.
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald LeBEAU, Appellant. *64United States of America, Appellee, v. Neil LeBeau, Appellant.

Nos. 02-1164, 02-1320.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 21, 2002.

Filed Aug. 27, 2002.

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Gerald LeBeau and Neil LeBeau of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The LeBeaus appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and accepting as established all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict, we conclude a rational juror could have found the LeBeaus guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *United States v. Cruz,*285 F.3d 692, 697 (8th Cir.2002).

The LeBeaus fled from tribal officers in a lengthy, high-speed car chase. One of the officers testified he saw the LeBeaus stop their loaned rental car on a rarely traveled road over twenty miles from the nearest town and run from their car “with something” to a hay bale. After apprehending the LeBeaus later the same day, officers returned to the bale and found twenty-one baggies (seventeen small, one medium, and three large) containing a total of 95 grams of cocaine stuffed inside. In the LeBeau’s car, the officers found an open box of baggies (with twenty-two missing) that were the same as the small baggies containing the cocaine.

To convict the LeBeaus, the Government had to prove they knowingly possessed and intended to distribute the cocaine found inside the hay bale. *Id.*The LeBeaus argue there is insufficient evidence that they possessed the cocaine because the officer did not actually see them place the baggies of cocaine in the hay bale. Unlike the situation in *Cruz,*where there was no evidence of the defendants’ motive for entering a house where drugs were later found or of the defendants’ activity inside the house, *id.*at 698, the LeBeaus were in the process of fleeing *65from law enforcement officers, had a motive to hide drugs in their possession, were both seen running with something directly from their car to the hay bale, and had baggies inside their car matching those containing cocaine later found in the bale. A jury could reasonably infer the LeBeaus took the cocaine from their car and put it in the bale, an obvious landmark in open country, to secrete evidence in the hope that it would not be found by law enforcement, that they would not be caught with it in their possession, and that they could return later to retrieve it. Given the eyewitness testimony and the connection between the cocaine and the baggies found in the car, a reasonable jury could have found both LeBeaus knowingly possessed the cocaine. From the cocaine’s packaging and quantity, the jury could also reasonably find they intended to distribute it.

We thus affirm the LeBeaus’ convictions. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
Exhibit 32.1



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 CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mercedes Walton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Jill M. Taymans, Chief Financial 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:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mercedes Walton                             
|Mercedes Walton                                 
|Interim Chief Executive Officer                 
|                                                
|February 25, 2005                               
|                                                
|/s/ Jill M. Taymans                             
|Jill M. Taymans                                 
|Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer
|                                                
|February 25, 2005                               



66
Document

Exhibit 10.2
Summary of Compensation Information of Aaron Akerman, Chief Financial Officer


On August 11, 2021, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Immersion Corporation (the “Company”), increased the annual base salary of Mr. Aaron Akerman, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, to CAD$310,000, effective August 11, 2021.
#### Johnnie THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-90.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence. We have examined the remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit. However, the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of a judgment and sentence for the offense of aggravated battery in accordance with the verdict of the jury. The defendant need not be present for this purpose.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-561-000]


South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Filing

December 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 29, 1997, South Carolina Electric & Gas 
Company tendered for filing a report that summarizes transactions that 
occurred July 1, 1997, through September 30, 1997, pursuant to the 
Market-Based Tariff accepted by the Commission in Docket Nos. ER96-
1085-000 and ER96-3073-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before December 12, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32127 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 23.3**

 

 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

SemGroup Corporation

Tulsa, Oklahoma

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-170968) of SemGroup Corporation of our report dated February 11, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, of NGL Supply, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2010, which appears in the NGL Energy Partners LP and Subsidiaries Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2012.

 

 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

Dallas, Texas

 

June 21, 2012

 

----
Exhibit 12





AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Unaudited)







|                                                   | Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended
|-------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | ----------------
|                                                   | June 30,           | June 30,        
|(dollars in thousands)                             | 2006               | 2005
Restated   
|Earnings:
Income before provision for income taxes | $181,264           | $199,284        
|Interest expense                                   | 279,287            | 208,385         
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 4,987              | 4,537           
|Total earnings                                     | $465,538           | $412,206        
|Fixed charges:
Interest expense                    | $279,287           | $208,385        
|Implicit interest in rents                         | 4,987              | 4,537           
|Total fixed charges                                | $284,274           | $212,922        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                 | 1.64               | 1.94            







42