alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene GAITHER, a/k/a Shag, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 74-2197

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 13, 1974.

Howard L. Stopeck, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

John W. Stokes, U. S. Atty., J. Owen Forrester, J. Robert Cooper, Asst. U. S. Attys., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Before COLEMAN, DYER and RONEY, Circuit Judges:

*

Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 P.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Convicted of heroin distribution, the defendant brought a § 2255 ■ attack on his six-year sentence on the ground that the district judge considered a defective 1951 Dyer Act conviction. The judge vacated the six-year sentence, stated that he would not “consider the prior conviction in assessing sentence in any way,” but then reimposed another six-year sentence.

Appellant attacks this resentencing process as being unconstitutional, arguing that it is inherently impossible for any court to disclaim consideration of a prior unconstitutional conviction in assessing sentence while still possessing knowledge thereof. He contends he is entitled to be resentenced by an appropriate court which does not possess any knowledge of this prior unconstitutional conviction. We disagree.

The trial judge clearly stated the reason the six-year sentence was appropriate without regard to the 1951 conviction.

> “I have as is obvious simply reimposed the sentence which I imposed prior. ... I want to make a statement that the reason I’m doing this is that my sentence before and my sentence now is simply based upon my conviction that you, a nondrug user, were using and pushing drugs for gain, which had a deleterious effect upon the others, and this was not a mere street level but the defendant was a second level distributor, and *453that was the basis of my judgment of conviction before and it remains the basis of my judgment of conviction.”

In fact, a reading of the transcript of the original sentencing leaves some doubt that the district court gave much consideration to the 1951 conviction in the first instance. The defendant’s counsel argued “although Mr. Gaither has had a few prior brushes with the law that there is nothing of any consequence for almost the past 20 years.” The six-year sentence for a narcotics crime carrying a 15 year maximum does not indicate that the court considered anything but the reasons articulated in resentencing.

Out of an apparent abundance of caution, however, the district judge vacated the sentence and followed the guidelines set forth by this Court in Lipscomb v. Clark, 468 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1972). *See*Haynie v. United States, 474 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1973); Russo v. United States, 470 F.2d 1357 (5th Cir. 1972).

Since the district court did not consider the 1951 conviction on resentencing, the alleged constitutional infirmity of that conviction is accepted as accurate and we need not review the arguments made to us on that issue.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-29-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         1,491,443
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    8,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,510,691
<PP&E>                                         1,253,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                 97,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,137,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          554,610
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21,128
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,561,974
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,137,712
<SALES>                                        263,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,892
<CGS>                                          122,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               131,074
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             454,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,011,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,011,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,011,254)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.29)



</TABLE>
# L_2006290EN.01003901.xml

| 20.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 290/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 290/39

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1575/2006

of 19 October 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the import of maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the maximum reduction in the duty on maize imported into Spain from third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 (3), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and on the basis of the tenders notified, to make no award.

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 a maximum reduction in the duty should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 13 October to 19 October 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the reduction in the duty on imported maize issued in Regulation (EC) No 1421/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 October 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 269, 28.9.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1558/2005 (OJ L 249, 24.9.2005, p. 6).

3

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0206 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FELICIA MARIE HINKLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 13 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2024

08/09/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0206
Exhibit 32.2








Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18 U.S.C. § 1350





I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Executive Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:





1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-Q/A of the Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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 Corporation.





Date: April 23, 2012


By:  /s/ Louis J. Brothers


Louis J. Brothers


President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board








The information contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
**EXHIBIT 23****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-24083and 333-143244 and Forms S-8 No. 333-38929 and 333-103453) of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. ofour report dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedules of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statement No. 333-62181 of Union Pacific Resources
Group Inc. on Form S-3 and No. 333-22613 and No. 333-35641 of Union Pacific
Resources Group Inc. on Form S-8, of our report dated January 25, 1999 included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1998.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Fort Worth, Texas
March 15, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kam Shah,  Chief  Accounting  Officer  of Webtradex International, Inc., (the "Company"),  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) The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (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.






/s/ Kam ShahKam ShahChief Accounting Officer




Date: November 15, 2010








This certification accompanies the Report 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Each director and/or officer of CheckFree Corporation (the "Corporation")
whose signature appears below hereby appoints Peter J. Kight, David E. Mangum,
and Curtis A. Loveland as the undersigned's attorneys or any of them
individually as the undersigned's attorney, to sign, in the undersigned's name
and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and to cause to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2005, and likewise to sign and file with the Commission any and
all amendments to the Form 10-K, and the Corporation hereby also appoints such
persons as its attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its attorney-in-fact with
like authority to sign and file the Form 10-K and any amendments thereto
granting to each such attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney-in-fact or the
undersigned's substitute may do by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 2nd day of
September, 2005.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Signature                               Title
---------                               -----
<S>                                     <C>


/s/ Peter J. Kight                      Chairman of the Board and
-------------------------------------   Chief Executive Officer
Peter J. Kight                          (Principal Executive Officer)


/s/ David E. Mangum                     Executive Vice President and Chief
-------------------------------------   Financial Officer
David E. Mangum                         (Principal Financial Officer)


/s/ John J. Browne, Jr.                 Vice President, Controller, and
-------------------------------------   Chief Accounting Officer
John J. Browne, Jr.                     (Principal Accounting Officer)


/s/ William P. Boardman                 Director
-------------------------------------
William P. Boardman


/s/ James D. Dixon                      Director
-------------------------------------
James D. Dixon


/s/ Mark A. Johnson                     Director
-------------------------------------
Mark A. Johnson


/s/ Lewis C. Levin                      Director
-------------------------------------
Lewis C. Levin


/s/ Eugene F. Quinn                     Director
-------------------------------------
Eugene F. Quinn


/s/ Jeffrey M. Wilkins                  Director
-------------------------------------
Jeffrey M. Wilkins
</TABLE>
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2108 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s textile upper footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s textile 

upper footwear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN’S TEXTILE UPPER FOOT4 WEAR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2108 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Footwear with outer soles of 

leather or composition leather 

and with uppers of textile 

materials, valued less than 

$20/pair, for women (provided for in subheading 

6404.20.60) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
TORO VENTURES INC.
FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph Arcaro, am the Chief Executive
Officer of Toro Ventures Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the six month period ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|Date: June 17, 2013                                                                     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: /s/ Joseph Arcaro
        Joseph Arcaro
        Chief Financial Officer and Director
#### STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS, State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. TOWN OF SILVERTHORNE, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, Virgil M. Cox, and Linda M. Rhea as Treasurer of Summit County, Respondents.

No. 85SC249.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

April 30, 1987.

*412Jeffrey Doniger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioners.

Myron A. Clark, Denver, Colo., for Town of Silverthorne.

Marlin D. Opperman, William M. Schell, Denver, Colo., for Virgil M. Cox.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon review of the record and briefs filed in the above cause, and having heard the oral arguments of counsel,

IT IS THIS DAY Ordered that the Writ of Certiorari in the above captioned cause shall be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED as having been improvidently granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause be and is remanded to the Court of Appeals.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11150

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ramiro Medina-Gomez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-190-1

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ramiro Medina-Gomez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Medina-Gomez has filed a response, in which he challenges 

his guilty plea and sentence arguing, inter alia, that he pleaded guilty based 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11150 Document: 00516884263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 22-11150

2

on counsel’s erroneous advice regarding the applicable guidelines range and 

that counsel failed to respond to his request to withdraw his guilty plea. The 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

Medina-Gomez’s claim that counsel failed to respond to his request to 

withdraw his guilty plea. We therefore decline to consider the claim without 

prejudice to it being raised on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 

F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Medina-Gomez’s response. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-11150 Document: 00516884263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,**

**18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Financial Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:

1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (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 Corporation.

Date: August 16, 2010

 

By:  */s/ Louis J. Brothers*

Louis J. Brothers

President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board