alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7912
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY PAT GADSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-99-HAR, CA-96-2333-HAR) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Pat Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Maury S. Epner, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders (1) denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, in which he claimed that there is no difference between "cocaine base" and "cocaine" for purposes of the sentencing guidelines and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Our review of the recorddiscloses no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
IIA 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 27 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue Service 

of the Department of the Treasury relating to liability under section 

5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the shared responsibility 

payment for not maintaining minimum essential coverage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2013 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. COATS) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Internal Revenue Service of the Department of the 

Treasury relating to liability under section 5000A of 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the shared responsibility payment for not maintaining minimum essential coverage. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the In4 ternal Revenue Service of the Department of the Treasury 

5 relating to liability under section 5000A of the Internal 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 27 IS 

1 Revenue Code of 1986 for the shared responsibility pay2 ment for not maintaining minimum essential coverage 

3 (published at 78 Fed. Reg. 53646 (August 30, 2013)), 

4 and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





I, Todd Delmay, Chief Financial Officer
of The Luxurious Travel Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:



| | (a) | the Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



* * *



|By: | /s/
    Todd Delmay     | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    | Todd Delmay             | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer | 



Date: August 3, 2015
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 on Form 10-Q of Monroe Capital
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theodore L. Koenig, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and I, Aaron D. Peck, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 7, 2017



| | /s/ Theodore L. Koenig                                        
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | Theodore L. Koenig                                            
| | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director                
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                 
| | Monroe Capital Corporation                                    
| |                                                               
| | /s/ Aaron D. Peck                                             
| | Aaron D. Peck                                                 
| | Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Director
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                  
| | Monroe Capital Corporation
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8942-8943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3456]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 13002 and <greek-i> 13003]


Alabama Disaster Number AL-00040

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major

[[Page 8943]]

disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-4052-DR), dated 02/01/2012.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight-Line Winds, and 
Flooding.
    Incident Period: 01/22/2012 through 01/23/2012.
    Effective Date: 02/07/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/02/2012.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/01/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 02/01/2012 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Perry.
Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Alabama: Hale, Marengo.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-3456 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31010 Conference Calendar

CHARLES A. BADEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF LOUISIANA; JUDGE SUSAN M. CHEHARDY; JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE; HARRY LEE, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC Nos. 95-CV-2240, 95-CV-2432

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Charles A. Badeaux, Louisiana pre-trial detainee, #162692, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Appellant argues that the defendants violated his constitutional rights because the law library at the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center inNo. 95-31010 - 2 - which he was incarcerated did not have a “Black’s Law Dictionary.” We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Badeaux’s brief, and find no abuse of discretion. Badeaux’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Badeaux that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Badeaux is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
NUMBER 13-18-00252-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

THOMAS J. GESSWEIN, Appellant,

v.

SHARON L. GESSWEIN, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides 

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on consideration of appellant Thomas J. Gesswein’s 

Amended Motion to Stay Trial. By his motion, Thomas asks the Court to stay 

proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of his interlocutory appeal. 

On interlocutory appeal, Thomas challenges the denial of his special appearance 

in the lawsuit filed by his former spouse Sharon L. Gesswein. The Civil Practice and 
2

Remedies Code provides for an appeal from an interlocutory order which “grants or 

denies the special appearance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure, except in a suit brought under the Family Code . . . .” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(7) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). 

An interlocutory appeal under this section automatically stays the commencement 

of a trial pending resolution of the appeal. See id. § 51.014(b). “[T]he stay set forth in 

section 51.014 is statutory and allows no room for discretion.” In re Univ. of Incarnate 

Word, 469 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, orig. proceeding).

The automatic stay is only available, however, when the special appearance was 

filed, and a hearing requested, within a defined timeframe. See In re Tex. Dep’t of 

Transp., 510 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, orig. proceeding). To trigger 

the automatic stay, the special appearance must have been filed and a hearing requested 

no later than the date set in a scheduling order, if any, or 180 days after the defendant’s 

first responsive pleading. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(c); Incarnate 

Word, 469 S.W.3d at 258.

The record reveals that Thomas’s special appearance was filed within the required 

180-day window: there was no scheduling order; Thomas filed his special appearance 

on January 16, 2018; and the hearing on the special appearance took place on April 12, 

2018, well within 180 days of his special appearance. Because Thomas timely filed and 

requested a hearing on his special appearance, his interlocutory appeal automatically 

triggered a stay of any trial in the county court. See Incarnate Word, 469 S.W.3d at 258. 
3

This Court, having fully examined and considered Thomas’s motion, believes it should be 

granted with an order recognizing the automatic stay.

Accordingly, Thomas’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that 

commencement of a trial in the county court be stayed.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of June, 2018.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Appellant, In the Interest of Rachel LAMB, Obligee-Appellant, v. Russell Leroy LARGE, Obligor-Appellee.

No. 87CA0118.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. V.

Aug. 18, 1988.

Robert R. Gallagher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Catherine P. Adkisson, Ghief Deputy Dist. Atty., Littleton, for appellant.

No appearance for obligor-appellee.

PLANK, Judge.

The People appeal from a trial court order assessing attorney fees against the Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office. We reverse.

This action was brought against Russell Large (obligor) pursuant to the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 14-5-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6B). The action was dismissed after blood tests excluded the obligor as the father of the child for whom support was sought. Subsequently, the court found that the action was substantially groundless and frivolous, but that the individual deputy district attorneys who prose*295cuted it were not at fault. As a result of this conclusion, it entered an order awarding obligor $500 for attorney fees pursuant to § 13-17-102(4), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) and requiring the Arapahoe County District Attorney’s Office to pay the fees.

In challenging the award of attorney fees, the People argue that the action was pursued as required by law, and since the court did not find fault with any of the individual deputy district attorneys involved in the matter, it was improper to impose any fees upon the district attorney’s office. We agree.

There is no support for the trial court’s finding that the action was substantially groundless and frivolous. *See Western United Realty, Inc. v. Issacs,*679 P.2d 1063 (Colo.1984). The obligor was the husband of the child’s mother when the child was conceived and bom. The obligee, the child’s maternal grandmother, knew that the child’s mother had visited the obligor around the time the child was conceived. The obligor, himself, delayed denying parentage during the proceedings. Furthermore, certain documentation that may have put the deputy district attorneys on notice that obligor might not be the father were difficult to obtain from the Ohio court, arrived late in this case, and were ambiguous as to their meaning and effect.

The People had a duty to pursue this case until provided with sufficient evidence that the obligor was not the child’s natural father. *See*§ 14-5-119(2) and § 14-5-128, C.R.S., (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). The People promptly dismissed the case once conclusive blood test results established the obli-gor was not the child’s father. Accordingly, the order granting attorney fees is not sustainable. *See Hart & Trinen v. Surplus Electronics Corp.,*712 P.2d 491 (Colo.App.1985).

The order is reversed.

VAN CISE and FISCHBACH, JJ., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Stockholders
T. Rowe Price Renaissance Fund, Ltd.,
A Sales-Commission-Free Real Estate Investment:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of T. Rowe Price
Renaissance Fund, Ltd., A Sales-Commission-Free Real Estate Investment,
and its consolidated partnership as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996.  In connection with our audits of the consolidated
financial statements, we have also audited the related financial
statement schedule.  These consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based
on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial
statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the consolidated financial statements.  An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
consolidated financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of T.
Rowe Price Renaissance Fund, Ltd., A Sales-Commission-Free Real Estate
Investment, and its consolidated partnership as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.  Also, in our
opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set
forth therein.

                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 24, 1997
<PAGE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50634

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEONCIO ORTIZ JACOBO, also known as

Leoncio Ortiz-Jacobo,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-78-ALL-LY

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Leoncio Ortiz

Jacobo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (3.58 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Tarantella, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Form S-8 of ourreport dated December 27, 2004, (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a going concern uncertainty), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tarantella, Inc. for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2004. 

 

/s/  DELOITTE &TOUCHELLP

 

San Jose, California 

December 27, 2004
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02511**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 02511\02511_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02511\02511_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 02511\02511_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02511\02511_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02511\02511_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02511\02511_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02511\02511_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02511\Certification Statement Plant ID 02511.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 02511\Email Correspondence with Plant ID 2511.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02511\Questions and Answers for Plant2511 (Black River Generation).xlsx Questions and responses to followup x 

### 02511\Questions for Plant 2511 (Black River Generation).xlsx Draft Questions to Follow Up



### 02511\Supplemental Documents\Attachments\02511_MAP-1 ORIS 10464 5034-06-1600.00-0001 PLOT PLAN.tif Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02511\Supplemental Documents\Attachments\02511_MAP-1 ORIS 10464.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02511\Supplemental Documents\Attachments\02511_MAP-2 ORIS 10464 Aerial Photo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02511\Supplemental Documents\Attachments\02511_Table D-5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02511\Supplemental Documents\Attachments\02511_WB-1 ORIS 10464.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.