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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-31243

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEARLIE HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CR-10006-ALL)

July 6, 1998

Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pearlie Hamilton appeals the sentence imposed following her

guilty-plea conviction for theft of government property. She

contends that the district court erred in calculating the amount of

loss attributable to her criminal conduct when determining the

applicable sentencing range.

A district court’s determination of relevant conduct and the

amount of loss is reviewed for clear error. United States v.

Peterson, 101 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117
2

S.Ct. 1346 (1997). Relevant conduct must be criminal, but need

only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. See Id. at 385.

After a careful review of the record and the controlling

authorities, we conclude that the district court’s determination

that a loss of $44,142 was attributable to Hamilton’s criminal

conduct is not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Powell, 124

F.3d 655, 663, 665-66 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 1082

(1998).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 39440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17010]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies 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, including the 
companies listed below, 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 August 23, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 
33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be 
sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d99ab6b4b4bcb7adaaf7b8a9a9b5b0bab8adb0b6b7aa99b7a0f7bfabbbf7b6abbe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9eac6c4c4ccc7ddda87c8d9d9c5c0cac8ddc0c6c7dae9c7d087cfdbcb87c6dbce">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Standard Chartered Bank, London, England; through its 
subsidiary, Standard Chartered Holdings, Inc., New York, New York, to 
engage through a newly formed entity, The Consortium, LLC, in data 
processing activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(14) of Regulation 
Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 3, 
2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-17010 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 

### Deneen, Donna

From: Smith, Rebecca T (DEC) <rebecca.smith@alaska.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 4:42 PM

To: Deneen, Donna

Cc: Turner, Thomas E (DEC)

Subject: ADEC SIP SUBMITTAL Revision Table

Donna,

As per our conversation on January 28, 2014, I wanted to let you know that the DEC SIP SUBMITTAL Revision Table that

ADEC has submitted with our SIP submittals for many years should be considered a document for informational

purposes only. EPA should not consider it a document meant to be used for official purposes.

I believe it was developed by one of my predecessors as a tool to help the department keep track of what revisions had

been submitted to EPA. I recognize that it is not part of the official submittal documents required by 40 C.F.R. Part 51,

Appendix V. If it is easier for EPA to not receive the document, we will discontinue including it in our submittals.

Thank you,

Rebecca
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 029 0 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 210 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### 20 09 - 0020 **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                0000949427
<NAME> THE HARTCOURT COMPANIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jun-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         144,790
<SECURITIES>                                   17,906,520
<RECEIVABLES>                                  321,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,571
<INVENTORY>                                    128,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,823,616
<PP&E>                                         31,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,160,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          414,190
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    10
<COMMON>                                       12,106
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,157,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,160,357
<SALES>                                        316,706
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               316,706
<CGS>                                          213,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  282,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               25,136
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             22,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (154,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (156,525)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (156,525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.013)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.013)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of CroffEnterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Gerald L. Jensen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

     (2) I further certify to the best of my knowledgethat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
Date: March 28, 2007 	 By 
/s/ Gerald L. Jensen 	 	Gerald L.	Jensen, 	 	Chief Executive	Officer
#### Claire L. FELTOVIC, Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION et al., Appellees.

No. 71-567.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The NAPLES COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPLES, a Municipal corporation located in the State of Florida, and Sandy Sandquist, as Director of the City of Naples Building and Zoning Department, Appellees.

No. 73-402.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,974)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,026
<PP&E>                                          65,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                (43,978)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,535
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,310)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,689
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,727<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,792
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,792
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
<FN>
<F1>Accumulated deficit & cumulative translation adjustment.
<F2>Other income, net of expenses and includes a gain related to the settlement of
the InsurQuote marketing agreement, a gain on exchange of investment securities
and equity in losses of ChoiceParts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Table B-7.  90-Percent Confidence Inverval of Standard Errors of

                   Homeownership Rates, by Race and Ethnicity:  2006





                                                 90-Percent

                                                 Confidence Interval (+/-)\2

                                                 of 2006 rate



U.S. total.......................................           0.5



  White alone, total.............................           0.3

    Non-Hispanic White alone.....................           0.3

  Black alone, total.............................           0.8

  All Other Races alone, total\1.................           0.8

      American Indian or Alaskan Native alone....           2.6

      Asian or Pacific Islander alone............           1.2



  Hispanic or Latino.............................           0.8

  Non-Hispanic...................................           1.0





\1 Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Americn Indian or Alaska Native (only one race reported) and Two or more races.

\2 A 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger the confidence interval is, in

     relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-CN.13 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, FEB. 21, 2012 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release 2010 Census Summary File 2 for Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa and Maryland What:
 Next week, the U.S. Census Bureau will release the 2010 Census Summary File 2 for Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa and Maryland. During December through April, the Census Bureau will provide statistics for states on a flow basis. These Summary File 2 tables will add a new layer of detail to the population and housing topics released last year from the 2010 Census. Information, such as relationship and homeownership, previously available only for an area's entire population will now be available for specific race and ethnic groups in that community. Summary File 2 will be available for up to 331 population groups and each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The information will be available for a variety of geographic areas, down to the census tract level.
 When:
 The Summary File 2 for these states will be available on an embargoed basis for accredited media who are registered for access Tuesday, Feb. 28 at 10 a.m. The embargo will be lifted and the information released publicly Thursday, March 1 at 12:01 a.m. To apply for embargo access, go to our Newsroom at https://www.census.gov/newsroom and click on "Embargoed Releases." Please review the Embargo Policy carefully before submitting the embargo registration form.
 Online Press Kit:
 For more information about the release of Summary File 2, please visit http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/sf2/summary-file-2.html.
 Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
argument solely with references to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial

Code, as codified in NRS Chapter 104, and NRS Chapter 646. "A single governing statute may be all the support needed to establish a point." Hernandez v. State, 117 Nev. 463, 466, 24 P.3d 767, 769 (2001). But in this case the applicability of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code is not readily apparent and Palace Jewelry provides neither relevant legal authority nor cogent argument as to why the text of these statutes supports their application to this dispute. More to the point, our independent research shows that "pawnbroking is an activity governed by Article 

### 9 of the UCC." In re Schwalb, 347 B.R. 726, 739-40 (Bankr. 

### D. Nev. 2006) (emphasis added); see also 8A Lary Lawrence, Lawrence's Anderson on the Uniform Commercial Code § 9-102:151 (3d ed. 2005) ("Article 9 applies to a pledge of personal property."). And Article 9 differs meaningfully from Article 2 and does not, on its face, advance Palace Jewelry's cause in any obvious way.

As the appellant, Palace Jewelry bears the burden of demonstrating reversible error. Schwartz v. Estate of Greenspun, 110 Nev. 1042, 1051, 881 P.2d 638, 644 (1994) ("We will not reverse an order or judgment unless error is affirmatively shown."); Lawrence v. Burnham, 4 Nev. 361, 363 (1868) ("The burden of showing error is upon the party alleging it."). This Palace Jewelry has failed to do. Because Palace Jewelry has failed to cite any relevant authority to establish reversible

...continued when the redemption time for each of the pawns ... expired," so this issue does not merit our prolonged consideration. NRAP 28(a)(9); Randall v. Salvation Army, 100 Nev. 466, 470-71, 686 P.2d 241, 244 (1984).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A meoerror, the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of

Zloof is affirmed.

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons



# hoe. Pickering J.

J.

J.

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge Jill I. Greiner, Settlement Judge Law Offices of Curtis B. Coulter Justice Law Center Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A en
Exhibit 10.45


 





 


August 9, 2016


 


S. Venkatesh


President


Ascend Laboratories, LLC


339 Jefferson Road, Suite 101


Parsippany, NJ 07054 USA


 


		Re:	Extension of The PharmaNetwork and Elite Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (“Extension
Agreement”)



 


Mr. Venkatesh,


 


The PharmaNetwork,
LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company and its wholly owned subsidiary of Ascend Laboratories, LLC (together "TPN"),
and Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Elite Laboratories, Inc. (a subsidiary of Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.),
a Delaware corporation (together "ELITE") are parties to a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement effective as of June 23,
2011 and a First Amendment of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement dated September 21, 2012 and a Second Amendment of the Manufacturing
and Supply Agreement dated January 19, 2015 and a Third Amendment of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement dated July 20, 2015
(together the “Agreement”). All capitalized terms used without definition in this letter agreement have the respective
meanings provided in the Agreement.


 


As per Section 7.1
of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement as modified by the Third Amendment of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement this Extension
Agreement is made by and between TPN and Elite. The Agreement between TPN and ELITE expires on December 31, 2016, and TPN and ELITE
want to extend the Term of the Agreement under the provisions of the Agreement; it is agreed that said Agreement is extended for
an additional year commencing upon the expiration of the Agreement and shall now expire on December 31, 2017.


 


This Extension Agreement shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, their successors, and personal representatives.


 


Signature page to follow


 


165 Ludlow Avenue • Northvale, NJ 07647
• Ph: (201)750-2646 • Fax: (201)750-2755 www.elitepharma.com


 




     


     


    

 


	ELITE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name:	Nasrat Hakim	 
	Title:	President and CEO	 


 


Accepted and agreed as of this August 9,
2016


 


	ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name:	S. Venkatesh	 
	Title:	President	 


 


		cc:	Bill Moran



			Rick Feiner



 


165 Ludlow Avenue • Northvale, NJ 07647
• Ph: (201)750-2646 • Fax: (201)750-2755 www.elitepharma.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DELRE MCCREA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 431 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DELRE MCCREA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 432 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.