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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51278

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOEL ROBERTO ROSAS-PAREDES, also known as Oscar

Urias-Gonzales, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2091-ALL

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

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Joel Roberto

Rosas-Paredes raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2
 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 CrowdGather, Inc. a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Gaurav Singh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of
his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  (2)
              The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
CrowdGather, Inc., and will be retained by CrowdGather, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  /s/
      Gaurav SinghGaurav
      Singh
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                March
      13, 2009
**Exhibit 10.21**

 

***100% Acceleration if Terminated within 12 months***

 

**ADDENDUM**

**TO**

**STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT**

 

The following provisions are hereby incorporated into, andare hereby made a part of, that certain Stock Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) by and between Borland Software Corporation (the “Corporation”) and[                ](“Optionee”) evidencing the stock option (the “Option”) granted to Optionee under the terms of the Corporation’s 2002Stock Incentive Plan, and such provisions are effective immediately. All capitalized terms in this Addendum, to the extent not otherwise defined herein, shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Option Agreement. 

 

**SPECIAL ACCELERATION**

 

1. To the extent the Option is assumed in connection with a Change in Controlor otherwise continued in effect or replaced with a substitute option, the Option (or such substitute option) shall not accelerate to any extent upon the occurrence of that Change in Control, and the Option (or such substitute option) shallaccordingly continue, over Optionee’s period of Service after the Change in Control, to become exercisable for the Option Shares in one or more installments in accordance with the provisions of the Option Agreement. However, upon termination ofOptionee’s status as an Employee of the Corporation for any reason other than for [Misconduct/Cause] as such term is defined in Optionee’s offer letter dated[                        ] (the “Offer Letter”) or upon Optionee’s [Involuntary Termination/ConstructiveTermination] (as defined in the Offer Letter) within twelve (12) months following such a Change in Control, then one hundred percent (100%) of the unvested shares under such Option (or such substitute option), shall automatically accelerate and suchOption (or substitute option) may be exercised for any or all of those accelerated Option Shares (or other securities) as fully-vested shares, together with any other Option Shares (or other securities) for which the Option has already become vestedand exercisable in accordance with the normal Vesting Schedule. 

 

2. In the event of any conflict, ambiguity, or inconsistency between the provisions of the Option Agreement and the provisions of this Addendum, to the extent possible such provisions will be interpreted so as to resolve any such conflict,ambiguity, or inconsistency, and if that is not possible, the provisions of the this Addendum will prevail. 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** Borland Software Corporation has caused this Addendum to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the Effective Datespecified below. 

 

 

**EFFECTIVE DATE:**
* 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. 95-11195

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WALTER LEE MCGRUDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-111-P

- - - - - - - - - -

August 30, 1996

Before KING, JOLLY, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Walter Lee McGruder argues that the district court

misapplied the guidelines in determining that he was not entitled

to an adjustment of his offense level for his minor role in the

offense.

We have reviewed the record, including the trial and

sentencing transcripts, the presentence report and McGruder’s

objections thereto, and the briefs, and find that the district
court’s properly applied the guidelines and did not commit clear

error in denying McGruder an adjustment for his minor role in the

offense. The district court did not rely solely on the relative

culpability of McGruder in light of the acts of the coparticipants. Further, the evidence presented at trial showed

that McGruder initiated the kickback scheme and remained actively

involved in the scheme to obtain additional business for his

company, C&A Electronics. The district court did not err in

denying the adjustment to McGruder’s offense level based on his

minor role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS*

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the ‘‘Report’’) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Terry R. McCormack                            Terry R. McCormackPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2007

/s/ Thomas H. Madden                                                Thomas H. MaddenSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2007

|         |                                                                                                                                                                             |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| *  | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. |

----
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Richard L. McAdoo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of CONTINENTAL ENERGY CORPORATION;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: December 31, 2003

Signed: /s/ Richard McAdoo

Richard L. McAdoo, CEO
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





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 Prospect Floating Rate and Alternative Income Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kristin Van Dask, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





/s/ Kristin Van Dask


Kristin Van Dask


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)


Date: February 13, 2023
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Analysis of historical errors in projections of gasoline and distillate demand from 

EIA

From: David Korotney, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

To: EPA Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111

In determining the applicable annual volume requirements and percentage standards that 

apply under the RFS program, EPA uses projections of gasoline and diesel demand provided by 

the Energy Information Administration (EIA). These projections are typically taken from the 

Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). Being projections, they will often contain some error. We 

reviewed historical data on gasoline and distillate projections from EIA to determined how those 

projections fared in comparison to actual (retrospective) gasoline and distillate demand.

We used data from Table 4a of the STEO to determine the error in demand projections 

for years 2005 through 2014. Data was not available from STEO for years prior to 2005. We 

converted the monthly volumes in million barrels per day into annual volumes in billion gallons 

per year. Since the final applicable percentage standards for a given year are required to be 

based on projections of gasoline and diesel provided by EIA by October 31 of the previous year, 

we used the October version of the STEO for the projections for the following calendar year. 

While on average EIA's projections tended to overestimate both gasoline and diesel 

demand for the following year, this was not always the case. The high variability in the errors 

suggests that there is no discernible systematic bias in EIA's projections.

Table 1

Errors in Gasoline Projections based on Table 4a of EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook

Year

Projected Actual

STEO release Volume STEO release Volume % change

2014 Oct 2013 133.07 May 2015 136.87 2.9%

2013 Oct 2012 134.04 April 2014 134.60 0.4%

2012 Oct 2011 135.77 Sept 2013 133.51 -1.7%

2011 Oct 2010 139.41 Aug 2012 134.02 -3.9%

2010 Oct 2009 139.31 Aug 2012 137.95 -1.0%

2009 Oct 2008 138.86 Oct 2011 138.01 -0.6%

2008 Oct 2007 144.44 Oct 2011 137.90 -4.5%

2007 Oct 2006 143.22 Oct 2011 142.44 -0.5%

2006 Oct 2005 141.82 Oct 2010 141.93 0.1%

2005 Oct 2004 141.41 Oct 2009 140.50 -0.6%

Average -0.9%
Table 2

Errors in Distillatea Projections based on Table 4a of EIA's Short-Term Energy Outlook

Year

Projected Actual

STEO release Volume STEO release Volume % change

2014 Oct 2013 59.95 May 2015 61.52 2.6%

2013 Oct 2012 58.92 April 2014 58.84 -0.1%

2012 Oct 2011 59.36 Sept 2013 57.41 -3.3%

2011 Oct 2010 57.45 Aug 2012 59.05 2.8%

2010 Oct 2009 57.27 Aug 2012 58.30 1.8%

2009 Oct 2008 61.29 Oct 2011 55.71 -9.1%

2008 Oct 2007 65.61 Oct 2011 60.51 -7.8%

2007 Oct 2006 65.13 Oct 2011 64.37 -1.2%

2006 Oct 2005 64.67 Oct 2010 63.96 -1.1%

2005 Oct 2004 62.58 Oct 2009 63.17 0.9%

Average -1.4%

a Table 4a of the STEO does not provide diesel projections specifically, but instead provides total distillate 

consumption. We estimate that diesel represents about 90% of all distillate.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

** PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Mark Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer andCo-President, in connection with the Quarterly Reportof CĪON Investment Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.   The Quarterly Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.   The information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2013

|   |                                                                                                       |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/  Mark Gatto

Mark Gatto  Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President

*(Principal Executive  Officer)* |
|   | CĪON Investment Corporation                                                                           |

 

 

 

----
SCPW-12-0000831

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,

Petitioner,

vs.

TED SAKAI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Petitioner Michael C. Tierney submitted a petition for

a writ of mandamus, which was filed on December 27, 2012. 

Petitioner seeks an order directing Ted Sakai, the Director of

the Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), State of Hawai#i (“the

State”), to “app[ro]ve dental treatment, teeth cleaning, root

canal, cavity fix, cancer treatment and treatment for concussion

for brain trauma.” Upon consideration of the petition and the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it

appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. 

Petitioner fails to demonstrate that DPS is purposefully ignoring

or failing to respond to his dental or medical needs and the

documents attached to the petition demonstrate that DPS has

provided petitioner medical and dental care within the purview of

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0000831

24-JAN-2013

10:30 AM
2

the State’s services, has apprised petitioner of the option to

seek outside care for services not covered by the State, and has

offered services for pain relief, if necessary. See Kema v.

Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action); Barnett v.

Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996)

(mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a

duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s

claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial

and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other

remedy is available); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)

(prison officials are prohibited from “unnecessarily and wantonly

inflicting” pain on an inmate by acting with “deliberate

indifference” toward the inmate’s serious medical needs). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 24, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
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 (1.07 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, Industrial Hardware, Strong Partnerships, DLA Troop Support

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00806-CV

Roger Bruce Martin, Appellant

v.

Debra Beal Martin, Appellee

FROM THE COMAL COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO.C2015-0641A, HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS, II, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 28, 2016, stating that he is appealing

“the Court’s ruling of November 22, 2108” in cause number C2015-0641A in the “428th Judicial

District” of “Comal County, Texas.” A final decree of divorce was signed on December 30, 2015,

in cause number C2015-0641A. The clerk’s record reflects that appellant filed a motion to set aside

the divorce decree on September 15, 2016, which was set for hearing on November 22, 2016. The

clerk’s record does not reflect that an order was entered on that date and contains no order on the

motion to set aside. On December 20, 2016, the Clerk of this Court requested a response from

appellant by December 30, 2016. The Clerk advised appellant that he must inform this Court of the

basis on which jurisdiction exists or that this Court may dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response has been received. We dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See id.
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 11, 2017

2
Order entered February 21 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00546 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00547 - CR EDGAR ALBERTO ROMO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 199 - 82866 - 2012 , 199 - 81976 - 2011



### O RDER The Court GRANT S appellant’s February 19, 2014 motion to extend time to file his brief. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order. /s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE