alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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. 07-10876

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL SHANOWAT

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-11

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael Shanowat has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Shanowat has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

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

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 21.1

SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC.

WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES

STATE OF INCORPORATIONBlack Hawk Holdings, L.L.C.

ColoradoCapri Air, Inc.

MississippiCapri Insurance Corporation

HawaiiCasino America of Colorado, Inc.

ColoradoCCSC Blackhawk, Inc.

ColoradoGrand Palais Riverboat, Inc.

LouisianaIC Holdings Colorado, Inc.

ColoradoIOC-Boonville, Inc.

NevadaIOC-Davenport, Inc.

IowaIOC-Kansas City, Inc.

MissouriIOC-Lula, Inc.

MississippiIOC-Natchez

MississippiIOC Black Hawk County, Inc.

IowaIOC Holdings, L.L.C.

LouisianaIOC Pittsburgh, Inc.

PennsylvaniaIOC Services, L.L.C.

DelawareIsle of Capri Bettendorf, L.C.

IowaIsle of Capri Black Hawk, L.L.C.

ColoradoIsle of Capri Marquette, Inc.

IowaPPI. Inc

FloridaRiverboat Corporation of Mississippi

MississippiSt. Charles Gaming Company, Inc.

LouisianaThe Isle Casinos Limited

United KingdomIOC Caruthersville, L.L.C.

MissouriIOC Blackhawk Distribution Company, L.L.C.

ColoradoIsle of Capri Bahamas Holdings, Inc.

MississippiPARTIALLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIESBlue Chip Casinos, Ltd.

United Kingdom


---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60270 Summary Calendar

ENRIQUE DEL ANGEL MONTIEL, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A36 590 557

- - - - - - - - - - May 18, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Enrique Del Angel Montiel petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to reopen his appeal. Respondent moves the court to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. This court lacks jurisdiction to review Montiel’s petition.
See Nguyen v. INS , 117 F.3d 206, 207 (5th Cir. 1997). IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
PETITION DISMISSED; MOTION GRANTED.
VLO Exh 10.07 - 12.31.2013




Exhibit 10.07




2014 INVESTMENT ELECTION FORM
Valero Energy Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan


Direction of Investments


The undersigned Participant hereby directs that the measurement of the Participant’s account be determined as if it were invested in the fund options as indicated below.


DEFERRALS OF SALARY AND/OR BONUSES BEGINNING 1/1/2014
WILL BE TREATED AS IF INVESTED AS INDICATED BELOW.


Enter your investment elections: 5% minimum/increments of 5%.
The total of the percentages must equal 100%.
You may invest in any one or more (including all) of the fund options.


	
		
	_ _ _ _ _%
	Dreyfus Appreciation (DGAGX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Fidelity Intermediate Government (FSTGX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Janus Worldwide (JAWWX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Milestone Funds Treasury Obligations Portfolio (MTIXX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Oakmark I (OAKMX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Price Mid-Cap Growth (RPMGX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Columbia Income Z (SRINX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Vanguard Balanced Index (VBINX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Vanguard Index Extended Market (VEXMX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Vanguard Index 500 (VFINX)

	_ _ _ _ _%
	Vanguard Growth and Income (VQNPX)

	100 %
	 






I understand that the elections I have chosen on this form shall remain in effect until I make a directive to change.


	
			
	Participant's Signature
	 
	Date

	 
	 
	 

	Participant's Name
	 
	Participant's Employee ID Number
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Certification


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amcast Industrial Corporation (the
"Issuer") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph R. Grewe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.



By /s/ Joseph R. Grewe
   ---------------------------------------
     Joseph R. Grewe
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     January 9, 2004
1
2 
3

 

 
4 
5

 
6

 
7 
8

 
9 
10

 
11

 
12

 
13 
14

 

 

 

 
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
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 Daxor Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Feldschuh,
M.D., President 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:

      (1)   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                           /s/ Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
                                           --------------------------
                                           Joseph Feldschuh, M.D.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           April 15, 2005
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
 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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of OFS Capital Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Jeffrey A. Cerny, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Registrant.
 /s/ Jeffrey A. CernyName:Jeffrey A. CernyDate:March 13, 2020
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cyril E. SCHOEN.

No. 60873.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 1977.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 12657

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICAN CORPORATION, a foreign corporation,

Plaintiff

- Third Party Defendant Counter Defendant

- Appellant,

versus NORTH AMERICAN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC., an Illinois Corporation, et al.,

Defendants,

EFN WEST PALM MOTOR SALES, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, GENE KHAYTIN, USCA11 Case: 23-12657 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12657

ERNIE REVU ELTA, EDWARD W. NAPLETON, GEOVANNY PELAYO, individuals, et al.,

Defendants

- Counter Claimants Third Party Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY,

Third Party Defendant

- Counter Defendant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States Distri ct Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 9:20

- cv

- 82102

- WM

____________________
Before W ILSON , J ORDAN , and G RANT , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Upon our review of the record and the parties’ response to the jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.EFN West Palm Motor Sales, LLC’s stipulations of voluntary dismissal of its fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth USCA11 Case: 23-12657 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 2 of 323

- 12657 Opinion of the Court 3
counterclaims against Hyundai Motor American Corporation

, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

, were invalid because that Rule generally does not permit dismissal of only particular claims or counterclaims within an action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) (1)(A)(ii)
, 41( c); Rosell v. VMSB, LLC , 67 F.4th 1141,
1144 (11th Cir. 2023) ; Esteva v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. (In re Esteva)
, 60 F.4th 664, 675 (11th Cir. 2023); K lay v. United Healthgroup, Inc.
, 376 F.3d 1092, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004)

. The district court’s subsequent orders adjudging those counterclaims dismissed pur suant to the stipulations were also ineffective to dismiss the counterclaims under Rule 41(a)(2). See Rosell , 67 F.4th at 1144.

We decline to construe the stipulations as seeking amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or as abandonment of the counterclaims

. The filings were labeled as stipulations of dismissal and expressly invoked Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the district court’s orders recognizing them explicitly accepted them as stipulations and contemplated dismissal under Rule 41. And unlike Hyundai’s expl icitwithdrawal, at trial, of one of its claims and the district court’s express recognition that the claim was abandoned, the parties have not pointed to anything in the record mentioning withdrawal or abandonment, at any time, of any counterclaim.

Accord ingly, the counterclaims have not been resolved and remain pending before the district court, so we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant , 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012). USCA11 Case: 23-12657 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of KSwiss Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 7, 2006

|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     
|/s/    STEVEN NICHOLS
|Name:                 |  | Steven Nichols                       
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

|                      |  |                                                                               
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     
|/s/    GEORGE POWLICK
|Name:                 |  | George Powlick                                                                
|Title:                |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Cubic Corporation

 

We have reviewed the condensed consolidatedbalance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of March 31, 2008, and the related condensed consolidated statements ofincome and cash flows for the three and six month period ended March 31,2008 and 2007.  These financialstatements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance withstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates).  A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures, and makinginquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of anymaterial modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidatedfinancial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with U.S.generally accepted accounting principles.

 

We have previously audited, in accordance withthe standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States),the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30,2007 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in ourreport dated November 30, 2007, we expressed an unqualified opinion onthose consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information setforth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30,2007, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to theconsolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

 

 
|   |   |   | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|

 

 

San Diego, California

May 5, 2008

 

----
Exhibit 3.1.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  TO  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION  OF  THE WET SEAL, INC.

* * * * * * *

(Pursuant
to Section 242
of the Delaware General Corporation Law)

FIRST:The name of the corporation is THE WET SEAL, INC.

SECOND:The Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation is hereby amended to increase the number of authorized shares of
the corporation by removingArticle FOURTH, Section 4.1in its entirety and replacing it with the following:



---



THIRD:The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation herein certified has been duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and acknowledged this Certificate of Amendment this 20th day of
July, 2001.

| | /S/ KATHY BRONSTEIN
| | -------------------
| | Name:              
| | Title:             

---

QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-10036]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 26591]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 946

[Doc. No. AMS-FV-13-0067; FV13-946-2 FIR]

Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Temporary Change to the 
Handling Regulations and Reporting Requirements for Yellow Fleshed and 
White Types of Potatoes

Correction

    In rule document 2014-10036, appearing on pages 24997 through 24999 
in the issue of Friday, May 2, 2014, make the following correction:
    On page 24998, in the first column, in the DATES section, ``May 5, 
2013'' should read ``May 5, 2014''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-10036 Filed 5-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

__2012

________ - NM -

___ 0 28

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant ? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
EXHIBIT 32.0 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
  pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of CPI Corp., a Delaware
  corporation (the Company), do hereby certify that:(1)
  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
  ended July 23, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the
  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
  1934; and(2)
  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results
  of operations of the Company. /s/ Paul Rasmussen
    
    /s/ Gary W. DouglassPaul Rasmussen
        Chief Executive Officer
    
    Gary W. Douglass
        Executive Vice President, Finance

        and Chief Financial Officer This certification accompanies this Report on Form
10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
it by reference. Date: September 1, 2005
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2009-0776 Directorate Identifier: 2009-NE-32-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Apply sealant 2.0 $ 170.00 $20 $ 190.00 104 $19,760.00

Replace busbar 

with slip ring 

harness

3.0 $ 255.00 $1,200 $1,455.00 104 $151,320.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $171,080

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Dowty will offer 
the parts at no cost if the work is performed at the next Major Inspection (MI). Dowty will charge 

for parts if the work is done prior to the next MI

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: