alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30356
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MALCOLM R. PETAL, Defendant RUTH PETAL, Movant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:08-CR-176-2
Before DeMOSS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ruth Petal appeals a $3,000 civil contempt judgment against her for failing to comply with a garnishm e n t order issued by the district court. Under th e g arnishment order, the person who was renting Petal’s son’s house w a s required to pay monthly rent to the Government and Pet a l w a s r e quired to U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 14 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30356 Document: 00511788227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2012No. 11-30356

produce an accoun t i n g o f p ast rents paid. Petal was sanctioned for failing to produce the accounting and for inducing the renter to disregard his obligations under the garnishment order. Petal raises two arguments on a p p e a l

. She first argues that her due process rights were violated because the garnish ment order did not provide a specific date by which the acc o unting was due. We have held that an order containin g a ti m e limit for compliance was sufficiently specific and unambiguous to be enforceable by means of contempt. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. LeGrand , 43 F.3d 163, 170 (5th Cir. 1995). However, holding that such specificity is sufficient is not the same as holding that it is necessary. In the absence of a s pecific compliance deadline in a court order, parties must comply with the order within

a reasonable time. See, e.g., Muze Inc. v. Digital on Demand, Inc. , 356 F.3d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Petal’s argument that the lack of a specific time limit f or c o mp li anc e re n dere d th e c o nt empt order unenforceable is without merit. Petal also argues that the contempt judgment should be reversed because th e di strict court failed to consider whether Capital One Bank, which hol d s a mortgage on her son’s house, has a right to the rental proceeds superior to that of the Government. Petal’s brief fails to c it e any relevant legal authority sup p o rting this argument, rendering it waived for inadequate briefing. See United States v. Stalnaker , 571 F.3d 428, 439–40 (5th Cir. 2009); Kohler v. Englade , 470 F.3d 1104, 1114 (5th Cir. 2006); Salazar-Regino v. Trominski , 415 F.3d 436, 452 (5th Cir. 2005), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Salazar-Regino

v. Moore , 549 U.S. 1093 (2006); L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs., Inc. , 17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). We AFFIRM in part and DISMISS i n p a rt for inadequate briefing.

2 Case: 11-30356 Document: 00511788227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2012
Filed 5/11/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 73

Amy Wery, a/k/a Amy Howe, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20090350

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Thomas J. Schneider, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kent M. Morrow, P.O. Box 2155, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2155, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on brief.

Cynthia Mae Feland, 514 East Thayer, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4413, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

Wery v. State

No. 20090350

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Amy Wery appeals from a district court order denying her application for post- conviction relief.  Wery argues the district court improperly denied her application for post-conviction relief because her counsel was ineffective, she reached a binding plea agreement with the State and only agreed to plead guilty on the basis of the terms of the agreement, her sentence is illegal, and the revocation of her probation was untimely. 

[¶2]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2), concluding the district court’s order denying Wery’s application for post-conviction relief is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.  We also affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7), concluding Wery’s sentence is not illegal under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1.  See DeCoteau v. State, 504 N.W.2d 552, 556 (N.D. 1993) (the holding about a combined sentence of imprisonment and probation in State v. Nace, 371 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1985), has been superseded by N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-06.1);  State v. Stavig, 2006 ND 63, ¶¶ 15-16, 711 N.W.2d 183 (in felony cases, under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32- 06.1 the court can impose two five-year periods of probation for a maximum length of ten years of probation).  

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

I, Yi Lung Ling; Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Genufood Energy Enzymes Corp. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:

1.

the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, 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.

|   | By:    | */s/ Yi Lung Lin*                                |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Yi Lung Lin                                      |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |                                             |
|   |   |                                             |
|   | Date:  | August 20, 2012                                  |
----

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 Tembec IndustriesInc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended September 24, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Frank A. Dottori, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: - the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and    
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  

Date: December 22, 2005 

*/s/Frank A. Dottori                                               *Frank A. Dottori President and Chief Executive Officer
[4910-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

IDocket No. FAA-2010-0177j Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-222-AD; Amendme

1(0'1q .;l.Olb- tLJ. -Dtf

39-*****; AD  -** -**1

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-243, -341, -342, and -343 Airplanes;

Model A340-541 and -642 Airplanes; Equipped with Rolls-Royce Trent 500 and Tr

700 Series Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTranSpOliation

(DOT).

ACTiON: Final mle.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products Ii

above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness mfonnatioll (MeAl

originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsa~'

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

It has been evidenced by test that the tightening torque settings on the

Rolls Royce Trent 500 and Trent 700 fo!Ward (FWD) and aft (AFT)

engine mount link pin retention bolts have always been higher than the

design value. These bolts retain the washers that maintain the engine

mount ve11icalload pins in position.

If bolts, as a consequence ofthe over-torque, fail and move away, it would

lead to loss of the vert1calload pins, which could result in loss orlhe

primary and/or secondary load path of the forward and/or aft engine

mount which could potentially lead to engine separation.

11OJT••••• SnOlIO ••

c·~

4 ~1-1"-1

."J:J[~",-

ft IS,ID

ROUnNGSV •• !IO\.

* * * * * * *

FAA Form 1360·14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY

* u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1995 769-211
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8552

ELTON E. COLEMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HUNTER RENTZ, Doctor, Director of Medical

Services for SCDC; PARKER EVATT, Director of

Bureau of Prisons, SCDC; JAMES L. HARVEY,

Regional Administrator; LINDA DUNLAP, BRCI,

RN; MINNIE WILLIAMS, RN, Supervisor of Shift;

DOCTOR ELLIOTT, MD, Unit BRCI, known as Broad

River Correctional Unit; in their individual

and/or official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-658-6-20)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elton E. Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Ronald Stanley, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Coleman v. Rentz,

No. CA-95-658-6-20 (D.S.C. Nov. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel and 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
- BL_Uruguay-12-15-1982
EXHIBIT 32.1



**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF LOOP INDUSTRIES, INC.**



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Loop Industries, Inc. for the quarter ended November 30, 2015, the undersigned, Daniel Solomita, President of Loop Industries, Inc., does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2015 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2015 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Loop Industries, Inc.





|Date: January 19, 2016 | By: | */s/ Daniel Solomita*                                                                                                           | 
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                       |     | Daniel Solomita                                                                                                                 | 
|                       |     | President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer |
Exhibit






HEI Exhibit 10.14
	
				
	Nonemployee Directors Compensation Schedule
	 

	Effective January 1, 2014
	 

	 
	 
	 

	HEI Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly)
	 
	 

	HEI Chairman of the Board
	 
	$250,000 
	 

	HEI Director
	 
	$65,000 
	 

	HEI Audit Committee Chair
	 
	$15,000 
	 

	HEI Audit Committee Member
	 
	$6,000 
	 

	HEI Compensation Committee Chair
	 
	$15,000 
	 

	HEI Compensation Committee Member
	 
	$6,000 
	 

	HEI NCG Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000 
	 

	HEI NCG Committee Member
	 
	$4,000 
	 

	ASB Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly) *
	 
	 

	ASB Directors who are not also HEI Directors
	 
	$40,000 
	 

	ASB Audit Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000 
	 

	ASB Audit Committee Member
	 
	$4,000 
	 

	ASB Risk Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000 
	 

	ASB Risk Committee Member
	 
	$4,000 
	 

	HECO Board - Annual Cash Retainers (paid quarterly) *
	 
	 

	HECO Directors who are not also HEI Directors
	 
	$40,000 
	 

	HECO Audit Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000 
	 

	HECO Audit Committee Member
	 
	$4,000 
	 

	Extra Meeting Fees (per additional meeting) 
	 

	HEI Board Member
	 
	$1,500
	(A)

	HEI Audit Committee Member
	 
	$1,500
	(B)

	HEI Compensation Committee Member
	 
	$1,500
	(C)

	HEI NCG Committee Member
	 
	$1,500
	(C)

	HECO/ASB Board Member
	 
	$1,000
	(A)

	ASB Audit Committee Member
	 
	$1,000
	(B)

	HECO Audit Committee Member
	 
	$1,000
	(C)

	ASB Risk Committee Member
	 
	$1,000
	(C)

	(A) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 8 meetings during the calendar year
	 
	 

	(B) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 10 meetings during the calendar year
	 
	 

	(C) Earned per extra meeting, after attending 6 meetings during the calendar year
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	HEI, ASB and HECO Boards - Equity Compensation *
	 

	HEI Director - annual grant (paid on last business day of June)
	shares valued at $75K
	 

	HECO and ASB only Directors - annual grant (last business day of June)
	shares valued at $40K
	 

	New Directors (one-time grant during first year of service -- prorated)
	portion of annual grant, prorated  on start date
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	* For ASB and HECO directors who are also HEI directors, ASB and HECO pay
	 
	 

	 a pro rata portion of each such director's total compensation (cash and equity value).
**STATEMENT
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 UNITED STATES C. § 1350**




I,
      John
      M. Davenport, the chief executive officer of Fiberstars, Inc. (the “Company”),
      certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
      States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,




(i)  the
      Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




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




/s/ John M. DavenportJohn
                M. DavenportMarch
              16, 2007






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 13, 2019

NO. 03-19-00336-CV

M. J. M., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 274TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE AND JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s order. 

Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 
  Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 
  Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John G. Robertson, President and Chief Executive Officer
  of Reg Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Reg Technologies Inc.
  for the year ended April 30, 2003 (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(a) or 78o(d)); and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of Reg Technologies Inc.

|Richmond, BC, Canada |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  |                                      
|September 23, 2003   |  | by: /s/
        John G. Robertson    
|                     |  |                                      
|                     |  | John G. Robertson                    
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
  provided to Reg Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Reg Technologies Inc.
  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
(April 25, 1991)

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Alvin L. Moulton, Respondent.

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), entered April 20, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the felony complaint.

Defendant was arrested July 9, 1989 for, *inter alia,*driving while intoxicated as a felony and was arraigned in Plattsburgh City Court the following day. On August 2, 1989, defendant’s attorney reached an agreement with Assistant District Attorney Keith Bruno on a negotiated plea and sentence and, in furtherance thereof, defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing and consented to prosecution of the felony charge in County Court by superior court information. On August 10, 1989, defendant’s attorney telephoned Bruno and inquired whether defendant might be permitted to dispose of the charges on a misdemeanor basis if he were able to provide information concerning local drug sales. Bruno acknowledged that possibility and provided defendant’s attorney with the name and telephone number of the State Police investigator to contact. There were no further proceedings on the charges against defendant until March 6, 1990 when defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the felony complaint on speedy trial grounds. The People opposed the motion, contending that the 111-day period from August 10, 1989 to November 28, 1989 should be charged to defendant because of his request that the matter be placed "on hold” pending his discussions with the State Police. In response, defendant’s attorney denied that any such request had been made. After considering the conflicting allegations of the parties, County Court determined that the People had failed to meet their burden of establishing that any period should be charged to defendant and accordingly granted the motion. The People appeal.

We affirm. While, arguably, a defendant may implicitly waive his right to a speedy trial by requesting or expressly acquiescing in a delay of the proceeding *(see, People v Friscia,*70 AD2d 709; *People v Panarella,*50 AD2d 304, 306), here the record supports County Court’s factual determination that the *1002People had established no such waiver. In our view, the People’s contention that defense counsel could have expected Bruno to interpret the August 10, 1989 telephone call as a request that further prosecution be temporarily suspended is wholly speculative, has no support in the record and provides no factual or legal basis for denial of defendant’s motion.

Order affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07256

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 07256\07256_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07256\07256_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07256\07256_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07256\07256_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07256\07256_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07256\07256_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07256\07256_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07256\07256_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

07256\Certification Statement Plant ID 07256.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07256\Questions7256.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 07256\RE EPA Steam Electric Questionnaire Follow-up 7256.rtf Draft Questions for Follow Up

07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_7705 TERA (Volume 1) - GCSES Environmental 

Assessment Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_7705 TERA (Volume 2) - GCSES Environmental 

Assessment Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_EPA Survey Section C2-31 Fly Ash Conveyance 

System Block Diagram.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_Part A Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_Part D BD1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_Part D BD2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_SteamElectricQuestionnaireMap1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_SteamElectricQuestionnaireMap2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_SteamElectricQuestionnaireMap3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_SteamElectricQuestionnaireMap4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\07256_TMPA FGD WWT Commercial Proposal-Revision 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07256\Supplemental Documents\Part D WWT-A BD.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.