alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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 October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40111 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFONSO ROCHA-GAYTAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-594-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alfonso Rocha-Gaytan appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being knowingly and unlawfully present in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). He argues that the district court erred in determining that his 2004 Florida felony conviction for simple possession of cocaine was an aggravated felony for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B). Rocha-Gaytan acknowledges that we have held that simple possession of cocaine is an aggravated felony under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) in United StatesNo. 06-40111 -2- v. Rivera , 265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2001), and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). However, he argues that we overlooked Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943), in reaching these decisions. Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the district court did not err in characterizing Rocha-Gaytan’s prior Florida conviction for simple possession of cocaine as an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2. See Rivera , 265 F.3d at 312-13; see also HinojosaLopez , 130 F.3d at 693-94. Rocha-Gaytan’s constitutional challenge to the sentencing provisions of § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Rocha-Gaytan contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Rocha-Gaytan properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.No. 06-40111 -3-
AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF
			THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC (the
"Fund") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Adam Langley, Chief Compliance Officer of Aspen Partners, Ltd.,
Managing Member of the Fund, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sabanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   1. the forgoing Report on Form 10-Q full complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

   2. the information contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of the Fund.


Dated:  November 14, 2007


/s/ Adam Langley

Adam Langley, Chief Compliance Officer
Aspen Partners, Ltd.
Managing Member of Aspen Diversified Fund LLC
**EXHIBIT 31.1** **CHIEF    EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**     I, Mitchell C. Hill, certify that:     1.     I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of Avanade Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2007, as    filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date    hereof;     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 period 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)     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 period covered by this    report based on such evaluation; and      c)     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 (the    registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably 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 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: August 9, 2007 /s/  Mitchell    C. Hill    Mitchell C. Hill    Chief Executive Officer
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Lexington Energy Services Inc. - Exhibit 10.25






Alliance World Limited 
12F, Golden Star Building 
20
Lockhart Road 
Wanchai, Hong Kong

Lexington Energy Services Inc. 
Suite 1209, 207 West
Hastings Street 
Vancouver British Columbia 
Canada V6B 1H7

November 22, 2006

Dear Sirs

Re: Notice under Secured Convertible Debenture dated
November 6, 2006

Pursuant to the Secured Convertible Debenture Purchase
Agreement and the Secured Convertible Debenture, both dated November 6, 2006 and
signed by Lexington Energy Services Inc. (“Lexington”) as Borrower, and Alliance
World Limited as Creditor, we hereby give you notice as of today’s date that we
wish to have all outstanding principal repaid in shares of common stock of
Lexington at a price per share of USD$0.85, in accordance with paragraph 1 of
the Secured Convertible Debenture.

Therefore, kindly issue 588,235 common shares at a price of
USD$0.85 in the name of Alliance World Limited pursuant to this notice of
conversion.

Yours faithfully

	/s/ Cathy Chu
	Cathy Chu 


  Alliance World Limited
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thurman Frazier, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 17, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender to an indeterminate prison term of *4Vz*to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

During a "buy and bust” operation, Officer Austin ap*280proached defendant to buy crack. Austin gave defendant $10, whereupon defendant walked over to another man and obtained the crack, which he then gave to Austin. Subsequent to the sale, at defendant’s behest, the officer gave defendant a single vial of crack.

Defendant challenges the IAS Court’s *Sandoval*ruling claiming that it was improper to permit the prosecution to inquire into the underlying facts of his 1986 conviction for attempted robbery in the second degree. This claim is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it. However, were we to address it in the interest of justice, we would nevertheless find it to be meritless. The trial court fairly struck a balance between the evidence’s probative value and its prejudicial impact upon defendant. *(People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371.) While defendant had a list of other convictions, there was only one as to which the court permitted inquiry as to the underlying facts.

Defendant also challenges the court’s charge regarding his agency defense. However, read in its entirety, the court’s charge was proper. *(See, People v Coleman, 70*NY2d 817, 819.) The court repeatedly told the jury that the burden was on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was not acting solely as an agent for the undercover officer.

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification ofPrincipal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350,

As AdoptedPursuant to

Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli,principal executive officer of Reef Global Energy VI, L.P., certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)                                 TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
| Date:  August 19, 2008 |   |   | 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)*         |

 

Thiscertification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by § 906 has been providedto the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                     2213777
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              4334563
<ALLOWANCES>                                               (116572)
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           2735940
<PP&E>                                                   156332064
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (52134390)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           151742632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     18932459
<BONDS>                                                  152445620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                               (19635447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             151742632
<SALES>                                                   67291506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          67291506
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             66873118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        20914341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (20495953)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (20495953)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (20495953)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           (4350424)
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (24846377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC MATTHEW MUMAW,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 622 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of March, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1949 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pyromellitic Dianhydride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. ISAKSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pyromellitic 

Dianhydride. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PYROMELLITIC DIANHYDRIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.14 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Pyromellitic Dianhydride) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1949 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1785 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require State approving agencies 

to approve courses of education that have been accredited and approved 

by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2009 

Mr. ENSIGN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require State 

approving agencies to approve courses of education that 

have been accredited and approved by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MANDATORY APPROVAL OF ACCREDITED 

4 COURSES. 

5 Section 3675(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, 

6 is amended— 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1785 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘A State’’ and inserting ‘‘Sub2 ject to subsection (b), a State’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘agency may’’ and all that fol4 lows through ‘‘such courses have’’ and inserting the 

5 following: ‘‘agency— 

6 ‘‘(A) shall approve the courses offered by an 

7 educational institution when such courses have’’; 

8 (3) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) 

9 through (D) as clauses (i) through (iii), respectively; 

10 and 

11 (4) in subparagraph (A)— 

12 (A) by adding ‘‘and’’ after ‘‘or associa13 tion;’’; and 

14 (B) by inserting before clause (i), as redes15 ignated by paragraph (4), the following new 

16 subparagraph (B): 

17 ‘‘(B) may approve the courses offered by an 

18 educational institution when—’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Gerard McGovern, Respondent-Appellant, v Fordham Hill Owners Corporation et al., Appellants-Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, and Veronica Brady et al., Respondents. Hussey Wood Floors, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered on October 22, 1990, which, *inter alia*denied defendants-appellants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against defendants-appellants-respondents, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendantsáppellants-respondents severing and dismissing the complaint as to them.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff asserts that defendants-appellants are liable to him under sections 200 and 241 (6) of the Labor Law. Plaintiff was injured while employed by third-party defendant Hussey Wood Floors, Inc., when a lacquer finish ignited while plaintiff was applying it to a floor in an apartment in the cooperative apartment building owned by defendant-appellant Fordham Hill Owners Corporation, and managed by defendant-appellant Brown, Harris & Stevens, Inc.

The Motion Court held that issues of fact were presented with respect to the knowledge and connection of appellants to the negotiation for and performance of the floor refinishing work.

On the record before this Court the plaintiff has failed to present any evidence demonstrating either that a violation of the Labor Law was a contributing cause of the explosion *(see, Herman v Lancaster Homes,*145 AD2d 926, *lv denied*74 NY2d 601; *Amedure v Standard Furniture Co.,*125 AD2d 170), or that any negligence on the part of appellants caused plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, no factual issue is presented with respect to any liability of appellants, and appellants are entitled to summary judgment. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
#### PUEBLO WEST METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. SOUTHEASTERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, et al. Respondents.

No. 86SC186.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Jan. 12, 1988.

ORDER OP COURT

Upon consideration of the briefs, record on appeal and the oral argument of counsel, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the Writ of Certiorari is DENIED as having been improvidently granted.

LOHR, J., dissents.
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

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report of FCB Bancorp (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report).

I, Romolo Santarosa, Executive Vice President and 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), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ Romolo SantarosaRomolo Santarosa Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Fidata Trust Company Massachusetts et al., Respondents, v Leahy Business Archives, Inc., Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on May 2, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Burton S. Sherman, J., with costs. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.