alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge FONSECA-GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-56843.

D.C. No. CV-00-2538-JNK CR-97-00843-JNK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 20, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Fonseca-Guerra appeals the district court’s denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fonseca-Guerra acknowledges that his § 2255 motion was filed beyond the one-year time limit,1 but contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling. Even if equitable tolling is available under § 2255, *see United States v. Schwartz,*274 F.3d 1220, 1224-25 & n. 4 (9th Cir.2001), Fonseca-Guerra is not entitled to it because he has not demonstrated that “extraordinary circumstances beyond [his] control ... ma[d]e it impossible to file a petition on time.” *Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Beeler),*128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), *overruled on other grounds in Calderon v. United States Dist. Court (Kelly),*163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). With one possible exception, the various explanations Fonse-ca-Guerra offers for his tardiness are unremarkable. Fonseca-Guerra’s only serious contention is that he lacked access to a law library during his time at a holdover detention facility. However, even if that time were excluded, it would amount to seven weeks at most, which is well short of the five months Fonseca-Guerra needs to rescue his motion from the one-year time limit.

Moreover, nothing in the record indicates that the reasons cited by FonsecaGuerra or anything else beyond his control made the timely filing of his motion “im*875possible.” *See Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir.1999).

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.

1

. Fonseca-Guerra's one-year limitations period began on July 19, 1999, and ended on July 19, 2000. He filed the instant motion on December 21, 2000.
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 239 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for limitations on copayments for contraception furnished by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 239 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Access to Con3 traception for Veterans Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON COPAYMENTS FOR CONTRACEP5 TION. 

6 Section 1722A(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

7 is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘to pay’’ and all that follows 

9 through the period and inserting ‘‘to pay—’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 paragraphs: 

12 ‘‘(A) an amount in excess of the cost to the 

13 Secretary for medication described in paragraph (1); 

14 or 

15 ‘‘(B) an amount for any contraceptive item for 

16 which coverage under health insurance coverage is 

17 required without the imposition of any cost-sharing 

18 requirement pursuant to section 2713(a)(4) of the 

19 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg– 

20 13(a)(4)).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 24, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 239 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 

and for other purposes. furnished by the Department of Veterans Affairs, for limitations on copayments for contraception
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31948]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 31, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
    1. Bank of the Ozarks, Little Rock, Arkansas; to acquire Heritage 
Banc Holding, Inc., Little Rock, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly 
acquire HEARTLAND Community Bank, F.S.B., Little Rock, Arkansas, and 
thereby engage in the operation of a savings association, pursuant to 
Sec.  225.28(b)(4)(ii) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 2, 
1997.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31948 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
**Exhibit 31.2**
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Gary R. Enzor, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Swift Transportation Co.,Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in thisannual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or inother factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent tothe date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions withregard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date:  March15, 2004   /s/ Gary R. Enzor   Gary R. Enzor Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Alexander GOLDMAN, Petitioner, v. GOOD’S LIQUOR STORE et al., Respondents.

No. 43421.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000025757
<NAME> CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                          14,831
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  268,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,640
<INVENTORY>                                    359,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               717,768
<PP&E>                                         467,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 442,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,531,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,801
<BONDS>                                        832,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,733
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,026
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,531,283
<SALES>                                        951,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               951,556
<CGS>                                          594,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  794,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,547)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,857
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,118
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114,232
<INCOME-TAX>                                    42,494
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             71,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (15,794)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,994
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
<FN>
<F1>Reflects Basic earnings per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Tommy Lee SIMMONS, Appellee.

No. 72-432.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
257 La. 602

#### Earnest FRANCIS v. LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS.

No. 51076.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Earnest Francis applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 241 So.2d 73.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33276]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-29-001]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 11, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become park of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, effective December 1, 1997, the 
following tariff sheets:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 39
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 40
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 120
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 121
Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 143

    FGT states that on October 31, 1997, FGT filed tariff sheets 
proposing to offer a new interruptible Part 'N Ride (PNR) service under 
Rate Schedule PNR. Subsequently, on November 26, 1997, the Commission 
issued an order (Order) accepting FGT's proposal subject to FGT's 
filing revised tariff sheets clarifying the term ``total cost 
commitment.'' FGT states that the instant filing is being made in 
compliance with such Order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426 in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determing the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33276 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 1, 2006 ofCrown Crafts, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 15, 2006                                                                   /s/ E. Randall Chestnut   E. Randall Chestnut   Chairman of the Board, President & Chief
Chinese Official Commitments on Exchange Rate Policy, Increasing Domestic 

Demand, and Improving Market Access 

3⁄4 President Hu Jintao – trip to United States (April 19-20, 2006) 

o “China will continue to develop the foreign exchange market (and) increase the flexibility 

of the exchange rate.”

o “We will continue to advance the reform of the RMB exchange rate regime, and take 

positive steps in such areas as expanding market access, increasing imports, and 

strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights” 

o “China pursues a policy of boosting domestic demand, meaning we'll mainly rely upon 

domestic demand expansion to further promote” growth. 

o “We'll continue to expand market access and increase imports of U.S. products.” 

o “China does not seek a large [trade] surplus, and will further open its markets to 

American goods and services.”

3⁄4 Premier Wen Jiabao 

o China “will expand the FX market and allow more flexibility and fluctuation of the 

Chinese currency.” (March 14, 2006) 

o "We must [expand] domestic demand, a long-term strategic policy that we must stick to." 

(October 8, 2005) 

3⁄4 People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan 

o China ``is adopting further measures to expand domestic demand, encourage 

consumption, open its markets, improve its exchange-rate regime, and restructure trade.” 

(April 22, 2006, repeating the 5-Point Plan to reduce the trade surplus that Zhou outlined 

before the China Development Forum on March 20, 2006)

o “We are moving into more [foreign exchange] flexibility...all these things are moving 

forward to lay the foundation for further market-oriented reforms.” (April 20, 2006) 

o “Six months after the reform (of the exchange rate on July 21), most Chinese enterprises 

have adapted smoothly...market forces could be allowed gradually to play a greater role 

in the floating exchange rate.” (March 20, 2006) 

3⁄4 Finance Minister Jin Renqing 

o “The Chinese government will...make the yuan exchange rate more flexible. China has 

never deliberately pursued a trade surplus or an increase in foreign exchange 

reserves.” (May 4, 2006) 

3⁄4 U.S.-China Joint Economic Committee (JEC) Joint Statement 

o The Chinese “affirmed their intention to enhance the flexibility and strengthen the role of 

market forces in their managed floating exchange rate regime.” (Oct.17, 2005)
AMHN, Inc. 10-Q


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 quarterly report of AMHN, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Howes, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




/s/ Jeffrey HowesJeffrey HowesPrincipal Executive OfficerPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 19, 2011




A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Curtis GAUDET v. Louis BERNDT and Maryland Casualty Company.

No. 5887.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 30, 1973.

Sanford Krasnoff, Robert K. Moffett, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Christovich & Kearney, Robert E. Pey-ton, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and SCHOTT, JJ.

*192SCHOTT, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a judgment awarding damages to plaintiff growing out of an automobile accident which occurred on Chef Menteur Highway in New Orleans on February 17, 1970.

Plaintiff’s version is that he was driving his vehicle at approximately 35 miles per hour in an easterly direction on the Chef Menteur Highway in the lane closest of three lanes to the neutral ground. As he came to the intersection with America Street defendant’s vehicle suddenly came from the right into the left (plaintiff’s) lane of traffic, whereupon plaintiff immediately applied his brakes but was unable to avoid the collision between the front of his vehicle and the rear of defendant’s vehicle.

Defendant’s version is that he approached the highway from America Street on the south, stopped and waited for an opening in traffic, intending to make a right turn onto the highway followed by a U turn through the neutral ground so as to proceed eventually in a westerly direction on the highway. When plaintiff’s vehicle was possibly two blocks to his left he proceeded with a wide right turn, crossed two lanes of the highway and directly into the lane closest to the neutral ground where he was proceeding at about 20 miles per hour when he was struck from the rear by plaintiff. Defendants contend that this was a rear end collision caused by plaintiff’s negligence.

Plaintiff’s version is supported by the physical evidence at the scene following the collision. The impact occurred 82 feet east of America Street, wholly within the lane next to the neutral ground. The plaintiff’s vehicle left 53 feet of skid marks leading to the point of impact and therefore commenced skidding about 29 feet east of America Street.

We find, as did the trial judge, that the' accident was caused solely by the negligence of defendant and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, defendant to pay the costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.