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

1 United States v. Zuniga , 18 F.3d 1254 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied , 115 S.Ct. 214 (1994).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-30885

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE ZUNIGA HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CA-2166)

February 9, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The convictions on guilty pleas by Juan Jose Zuniga-Hernandez of conspiracy to

distribute heroin, distribution of heroin, using and carrying machine guns in relation to a

drug-trafficking offense, and possession of machine guns were affirmed on direct appeal. 1

The instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion followed, contending that: (1) his sentencing offense

level was wrongfully computed, (2) his conviction for using and carrying a firearm resulted

from a judicial enlargement of the statute in violation of the ex post facto clause, and (3) he

had been denied the effective assistance of counsel at the trial level. As to the2 United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367 (5th Cir. 1992).

3 United States v. Zuniga-Hernandez , No. 92-583 (E.D.La. August 21, 1995).

2 ineffectiveness charge he contends that his counsel did not adequately and accurately advise

him as to the law, did not object to his sentence, and made promises that were not kept. He

requested a hearing thereon which the trial court denied because the record reflected the lack

of merit in these contentions.

We initially note that Zuniga’s challenge to the trial court’s application of the

sentencing guidelines is not cognizable in a section 2255 proceeding. 2 Our review of the

briefs and record discloses no reversible error and we affirm the denial of the other claims

for essentially the same reasons as assigned by the district court. 3

AFFIRMED.
##### 



RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION
   (1)
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of State National Bancshares, Inc.
for the quarter ended March 31, 2006;(2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 periods covered by this report;(3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;(4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Reserved](c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periods covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 (5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Dated:  May 15, 2006
    By:

/s/
Tom C. NicholsTom C. NicholsChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13009-13010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5256]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0542; FRL-9642-3]
RIN 2060-AR07


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Identification of 
Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuel Pathways Under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final rule on January 5, 2012 to amend 
the Renewable Fuel Standard program regulations. Because EPA received 
adverse comment, we are withdrawing the direct final rule.

DATES: Effective March 5, 2012, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 77 FR 700, on January 5, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Camobreco, Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality (MC6401A), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 564-9043; fax number: (202) 564-1686; email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a393b373538283f3935742c3334393f342e1a3f2a3b743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6c5c7cbc9c4d4c3c5c988d0cfc8c5c3c8d2e6c3d6c788c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA published a direct final rule on January 
5, 2012 (77 FR 700) to amend the Renewable Fuel Standard program 
regulations. The amendments would have expanded Table 1 of Sec.  
80.1426 to identify additional renewable fuel production pathways and 
pathway components that could be used in producing qualifying renewable 
fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. We stated in that 
direct final rule that if we received adverse comment by February 6, 
2012, that we would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register. We subsequently received adverse comment on several of the 
changes included in the revised Table 1 of Sec.  80.1426. Since the 
regulatory amendment in the direct final rule was a single Table 
including all changes, withdrawal based on the adverse comments we have 
received requires withdrawal of the entire revised Table. EPA intends 
to address all comments in a subsequent final action, which will be 
based on the parallel proposed rule also published on January 5, 2012 
(77 FR 462).
    As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, 
we will not

[[Page 13010]]

institute a second comment period on this action.

    Dated: February 27, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    Accordingly, the regulatory amendments published on January 5, 2012 
(77 FR 700) are withdrawn as of March 5, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-5256 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 21.1
                           SCHEIN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
                           ---------------------------

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES*

Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc.

      Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.

            Danbury Pharmacal Puerto Rico, Inc.

      Steris Laboratories, Inc.

      Marsam Pharmaceuticals Inc.

            MSI Inc.

      Schein Pharmaceutical PA, Inc.

      Schein Pharmaceutical Service Company

      Schein Bayer Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. - 50%

      Ranbaxy Schein Pharma, L.L.C. - 50%

      Schein Pharmaceutical International, Inc.

            Schein Pharmaceutical Canada, Inc. - 50%

            Schein Pharmaceutical B.V. (Netherlands)

                  Triomed (Pty) Ltd. (South Africa) - 50%

            Schein Pharmaceutical (Bermuda) Ltd.

                  Schein Pharmaceutical (U.K.) Ltd.

            Ethical Generics Limited (United Kingdom) - 50%

            Schein Farmaceutica de Peru

            Bayfarma de Colombia S.A. - 30%

            International Generics Company Ltd. (Taiwan)


--------
* All Companies 100% Owned Unless Otherwise Specified
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jerome B. Kreppel, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

*1002The evidence established that claimant had previously been told that his attendance needed improvement and that he had been warned in writing that any further unexcused absences would result in his termination. The employer’s rules also gave it the prerogative to request a doctor’s note when an employee was absent due to an alleged illness. At the hearings, claimant admitted that he had received the warnings and that despite being told to submit medical documentation to explain his absence on the Friday before his discharge, he failed to do so. Under the circumstances, the determination that claimant’s failure to produce a doctor’s note constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld *(see, Matter of Solanikow [Berliner & Marx—Ross]*67 AD2d 793; *Matter of Patterson [Levine]*50 AD2d 703, *appeal dismissed*38 NY2d 937).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Simon Anderson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joan Sudolnick, J.) rendered on July 6, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminally negligent homicide, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from *l-ió*to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

*175Numerous witnesses observed defendant hitting or arguing with the decedent, who after being taken into the hospital, lapsed into a coma and died. At trial, during summation, the defense made statements implying that the People’s witnesses were not telling the truth. The prosecutor’s comments at summation constituted fair response. *(People v Devonish,*159 AD2d 320, 321, *lv denied*76 NY2d 733.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe quarterly report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managinggeneral partner of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m OR 78o(d)); and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.
| Date: November 14, 2006 | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.        |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                    | Managing General Partner                 |
|                    |                                     |
|                    | By: Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|                    |                                     |
|                    | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                   |   |
|                    | Michael J. Mauceli                       |
|                    | Manager and Member                       |
|                    | (principal executive officer)            |

 

This certification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>

<S>                                               <C>                                          <C>
                                                   Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc.

Meadowbrook, Inc.                                  American Indemnity Insurance Co., Ltd.        Crest Financial Corporation
                                                   Star Insurance Company (50%)
                                                   Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. (50%)

                                                   Star Insurance Company
Association Self Insurance                                                                       American Highway Carriers
Services, Inc.                                     Savers Property and Casualty                  Association
                                                   Insurance Company
Meadowbrook Intermediaries, Inc.                                                                 Liberty Premium Finance, Inc.
                                                   Southeastern Holding Corporation
Meadowbrook Risk Management, Inc.                                                                Interline Insurance Services, Inc.
                                                   Ameritrust Insurance Corporation
Meadowbrook of Nevada, Inc.                                                                      Commercial Carriers Insurance
                                                   Williamsburg National Insurance Company       Agency, Inc.
Meadowbrook Insurance Agency, Inc.
                                                   Preferred Insurance Company, Ltd.
Meadowbrook Risk Management, Ltd.                    (Bermuda) (94.1%)
 (Barbados)

Meadowbrook Risk Management, Limited
(Bermuda) (80%)

Meadowbrook International, Ltd.

Florida Preferred Administrators, Inc.

Case Management Resources, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Florida, Inc.

Meadowbrook Insurance, Inc.

Preferred Insurance Agency, Inc.

Preferred Comp Insurance Agency of
New Hampshire, Inc.

TPA Insurance Agency, Inc.

TPA Insurance Agency of New Hampshire, Inc.

Meadowbrook of Canada, Ltd.

Market Place Resources, Inc.

National Osteopathic Physicians Purchasing Group, Inc.

National Realty Liability Alliance, Inc.

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WANDA MARIE COHILL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15483 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02479-JCM-EJY 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Wanda Marie Cohill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15483 

claim. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cohill’s action because Cohill failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Nev. Rev. Stat. 

§ 11.190(3)(d)-(e) (three-year statute of limitations for misrepresentation claims); 

Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of 

breach of contract claim under Nevada law); Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 

861-862 (Nev. 2014) (holding that, under Nevada law, homeowner lacked standing 

to challenge an assignment of a deed of trust as a non-party to the pooling service 

agreement); Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prod. Inc., 808 P.2d 919, 923 

(Nev. 1991) (elements of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim 

under Nevada law); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid 

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

We reject as without merit Cohill’s contention that the district judge was 

biased against her. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(a) 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 CheckFree Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Peter J. Kight, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: September 3, 2004
    /s/ Peter J. Kight
Peter J. Kight
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
CheckFree Corporation
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1997 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1997

     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on Propargite.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of the duty on Propargite.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROPARGITE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.09 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Propargite) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
----

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 Inc. (the"Company") on Form 40-F for the year ended September 24, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, MichelDumas, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 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;  and 
2.the information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  result of operations of the Company. 
Date: December 21, 2005 

/s/ Michel Dumas                                                                             Michel Dumas Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
# L_2008288EN.01001202.xml

| 30.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 288/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 288/12

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2006/27/EC of 3 March 2006 amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress Council Directives 93/14/EEC on the braking of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and 93/34/EEC on statutory markings for two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council 95/1/EC on the maximum design speed, maximum torque and maximum net engine power of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles and 97/24/EC on certain components and characteristics of two- or three-wheel motor vehicles

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 66 of 8 March 2006
  )

On page 9, Annex I:

for:

Formula

read:

Formula

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, Peter Toscano, Chief Executive Officer, of International Power Group, Ltd. ( the Company ), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on 10Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: November 19, 2008







/s/ Peter Toscano

Peter Toscano

(Principal Executive Officer)