alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Alaska, Petitioner, v. Kenneth C. LAMB, Respondent.

No. 7071.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

Aug. 30, 1982.

*972Michael S. McLaughlin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Wilson L. Condon, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioner.

Robert M. Beconovich, Lynch, Farney & Crosby, Fairbanks, for respondent.

Before BRYNER, C. J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In this case the district court entered an order suppressing the results of a breathalyzer examination administered to the defendant. The breathalyzer test was given to the defendant prior to our decisions in *Cooley v. Municipality of Anchorage,*649 P.2d 251 (Alaska App., 1982), and *Municipality of Anchorage v. Serrano,*649 P.2d 256 (Alaska App., 1982). In suppressing the test results, the district court relied on these decisions, reasoning that they applied retroactively to cases in which suppression motions were pending at the time *.Cooley*and *Serrano*were decided. The state petitioned for review. We granted the petition in order to clarify any possible ambiguity on the issue of retroactivity. .

In *Municipality of Anchorage*v. *Serrano,*649 P.2d 256, at 260-261 (citation omitted), we stated, in part, that our ruling would apply retroactively

> to those cases which have been consolidated for consideration here and in *Cooley v. Municipality of*Anchorage; to those cases in which suppression of the breathalyzer test has already been ordered by the lower courts; and to cases which arise after the date of this decision.

The reference in *Serrano*to “cases which arise after the date of this decision” includes only those cases in which breathalyzer examinations were administered after August 6, 1982. Thus, *Serrano*applies to only three categories of cases: (1) cases formally joined with those decided in *Serrano*and Cooley; (2) cases in which suppression had already been ordered on or before August 6, 1982; and (3) cases in which breathalyzer tests were administered after August 6, 1982.

The suppression order entered by the district court is REVERSED.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification

I,
James A. Peers, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GFI Group Inc.;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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):



Date:
August 8, 2008

|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/JAMES A. PEERSJames A. Peers Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MPC Corporation (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “*Report*”) 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

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|            | /s/ Curtis M. Akey                           |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------|
| August 17, 2007 | Curtis M. Akey                               |
|            | Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |
391 A.2d 673

#### Commonwealth v. Bell, Appellant.

*585Submitted March 13, 1978.

Larry E. Stone, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Reid H. Weingarten, Deputy District Attorney, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40755

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE TOLEDO-ORTIZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1649-3

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jorge Toledo-Ortiz (Toledo) appeals the 45-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Toledo argues that the district

court committed reversible error by denying him a minor role adjustment to his

offense level and by not articulating the factual basis for the denial.

The record demonstrates that Toledo played a critical role in packaging

the marijuana for distribution. Notwithstanding that Toledo’s participation was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-40755

2

small in terms of the overall distribution scheme, it was not minor in that it was

“coextensive with the conductfor which he was held accountable,” United States

v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593, 598-99 (5th Cir. 2001), and not merely peripheral to the

advancement ofthe illicit activity, see United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193,

204 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court did not clearly err.

The requirementthatthe district court articulate a sufficientfactual basis

for the denial of a minor role adjustment can be satisfied through implicit

findings, such as when the district court adopts the presentence report, which

occurred in this case. See United States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 323-

24 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 20, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00988-CV
WAYNE A. RAND, Appellant V. DOROTHY DENNISE RAND, Appellee

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06590

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGera ld, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice FitzGerald Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dism iss the appeal. Appellant has informed the
Court that the trial court granted his motion for new trial. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s
motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

130988F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE1300988.R.docx –2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

WAYNE A. RAND, Appellant

No. 05-13-00988-CV V.
DOROTHY DENNISE RAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-06590. Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald. Justices Francis and Myers, participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee, DOROTHY DENNISE RAND, recover her costs of this appeal from appellant, WAYNE A. RAND.

Judgment entered September 20, 2013

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
Quasi-Point Source EmissionsAppendix A3 - Quasi-Point Sources.docPage 1No quasi-point source emission sources are locatedin Cecil County, Maryland.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Symmetry Medical      Inc. (the “registrant”); and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/      Brian S. Moore      |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Brian      S. Moore          |
|   |   | Chief      Executive Officer |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**POLYPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC.**

** **

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Polypore International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Lynn Amos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, 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:   May 6, 2011** | **/s/ Lynn   Amos**         |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| ** **                   | **Lynn Amos**               |
| ** **                   | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, T. Don Waddell, Chief Financial Officerof 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)         TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Richard Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2007
(the "Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and

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

Dated: August 14, 2007


                                                         /s/  Richard Cohen
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Richard Cohen
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed original 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Baseline Oil & Gas Corp. (the
Company), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  |                                      
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas R. Kaetzer                
|                       |  |  |  | Thomas R. Kaetzer                    
|                       |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original 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.
#### Robert T. HERSHBERGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James W. BLACK, Sheriff of Larimer County, State of Colorado, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 80SA503.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 17, 1982.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1982.

J. Gregory Walta, Colo. State Public Defender, Suzanne Saunders, Thomas M. Van-Cleave, III, Elizabeth A. Joyce, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., John Daniel Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent-appellee.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

Appellant Robert Hershberger’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the trial court. We affirm.

The single issue before us on appeal is whether extradition documents received from the State of Ohio were properly authenticated. The appellant maintains that because the “Request for Interstate Rendition” was not signed by the Ohio governor, the requisition documents are fatally defective.1

*Tenorio v. Cronin,*193 Colo. 295, 565 P.2d 932 (1977), is dispositive of this issue. We held therein that a requisition document, signed by one other than the governor of the demanding state, is valid so long as the capacity of the signator to act on behalf of the governor is duly authenticated. *See*section 16-19-102, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8). Moreover, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to overcome the presumption that the person signing the extradition papers had the authority to do so.

Ohio Revised Code, section 107.15, authorizes the Ohio governor to delegate signatory responsibility to a designated “authenticating officer.”2 The appellant made no attempt in the trial court to show that the signator to the documents did not have the authority to so act and, therefore, the presumption of validity of his signature was not overcome.

*279The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1

. The “Request for Interstate Rendition” is a printed document which begins: “I JAMES A. RHODES, Governor, certify that the annexed papers are duly authenticated under Ohio Law.” The request is signed “R. F. Howarth.” Underneath the signature are the typed words: “Robert F. Howarth, Jr., Authenticating Officer for GOVERNOR JAMES A. RHODES (Ohio Rev.Code Sec. 107.15).”

2

. Ohio Revised Code, section 107.15, provides in pertinent part:

> The governor may appoint an authenticating officer and delegate to such officer power to sign for the governor any document.. . The authenticating officer shall sign in the following manner:

> “... Authenticating Officer for Governor. ...”

> . .. The authorized signature of the authenticating officer . . . shall have the same legal effect and validity as the genuine manual signature of the governor.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.27.1    
    


        "Certain
portions of this Exhibit have been omitted and filed separately with the Commission based upon a request for confidential treatment." 


August 30,
2004 


Amendment No. 1


To



Contract
for the Sale of Uranium Concentrates, dated August 12, 2003

Between [Redacted] and URI, Inc. 


        Pursuant
to the request of URI, Inc. ("Seller") to amend the Delivery Date for 2005, the Seller and [Redacted] ("Buyer") hereby agrees to amend the above
referenced Contract as follows: 


        Buyer
and Seller agree to amend the Delivery Date in 2005 from the period between January 1, 2005 to January 31, 2005 to a period that may be determined by Seller any time
between July 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005. 


        Buyer
and Seller further agree to amend the Annual Notice requirement for the 2005 delivery year from September 1, 2004 to January 3, 2005. 



        All
other terms and conditions of the above referenced Contract remain unchanged. Upon execution, this Amendment shall be effective as of the date first written above. 



	Agreed to by Buyer	 	Agreed to by Seller
	

	
 	


	Name	 	Name
	

	
 	


	Title	 	Title













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.27.1
# L AW 

# O FFICE OF 

# J OHN 

# M IETUS

, LLC

6701 D EMOCRACY B OULEVARD

, S UITE 300

B ETHESDA

, MD 20817-7500

J OHN R. M IETUS

, J R

. (202) 747- 5212 (240) 396-5362 fax john@mietuslaw.com

November 14, 2012

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Ms. Lauralyn Remo Ms. Vanessa Balgobin
Air Carrier Fitness Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Orange Air, Inc., Dockets OST- 2011 -0073/0074

Dear Ms. Remo and Ms. Balgobin:

Orange Air respectfully requests that the Department waive condition 9 of the certificate issued to it by Order 2011- 11 -31, condition 10 of the certificate issued by Order 2012-1- 31

, and 14 C.F.R. 204.7 so as to extend, through March 31, 2013, the time within which Orange Air must commence actual flight operations in order

to ma intain its interstate and foreign certificate authority. These provisions currently require Orange Air to commence actual flight operations no later than November 28, 2012, but it is now clear that the Federal Aviation Administration and Orange Air will not be able to complete new entrant certification by that date.

The FAA and Orange Air are working diligently to complete the certification process. This process was extended, in part, by Orange Air’s inclusion in a pilot project as the first U.S. carrier to adopt a Safety Management System during initial certification. Working closely with its FAA project and frontline managers Jeff Hipps and Charley Beers, and with AFS-900, Orange Air achieved Level 1 SMS validation this summer. (Messrs. Hipps and Beers can be reached at (407) 812-3032 and 812-3020, respectively.) Few of the traditional certification steps remain, but these require FAA team members to set aside blocks of time; this will become more difficult during the upcoming holiday season. Whi le Orange Air is hopeful that it can complete the process in the next two months or so, it suggests the March 31, 2013 date to allow scheduling flexibility for the entire first calendar quarter.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of the Peoples National Bank of Brooklyn, in New York, as Surviving Trustee of an Express Trust Executed by Ernest Kresse, Deceased.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 11, 1958.

*Wandmacher & Neuman*for trustee.

*Josephine M. Cain*and *Herman L. Weiss*for executors.

*George Hafner*for Lotte Schulze, Jr., and others, beneficiaries of the trust.

J. Vincent Keogh, J.

By a trust indenture, dated February 6, 1950, the deceased, Ernest Kresse, transferred and assigned to himself and petitioner, as trustees, certain property and securities the income from which was to be paid equally to the beneficiaries designated therein. By an instrument dated January 17, 1951, the settlor sought to modify the trust by striking therefrom the name of Lotte Schulze, Jr., a beneficiary named therein, and to insert in place thereof the name of another beneficiary. The trust settlor died in February, 1956 and the surviving trustee has submitted its final account. Objections have been filed to such final account by the said Lotte Schulze, Jr., and by the executors under the last will and testament of the deceased settlor on the ground that the trust was irrevocable and that the settlor was without power to modify same without the consent of all of the beneficiaries.

Paragraph “Ninth” of the trust indenture conclusively shows that the settlor, after being advised by his own attorney *879as to the distinction between revocable and irrevocable trusts, intended to and did execute an irrevocable trust.. Furthermore, since no right of revocation was reserved in the trust indenture and the settlor parted with all his title to the trust property he could revoke the trust indenture only upon the written consent of all persons beneficially interested therein, in accordance with the provisions of. section 2,3 of the. Personal Property Law; *Schoellltopf*v. *Marine Trust Co.*(267 N. Y. 358, 362).

It is found and decided that the trust indenture was irrevocable and that the attempted modification by the settlor is void. The objection of Lotte Schulze., Jr., to the items set forth in Schedule F of the account is allowed and the trustee is surcharged with the amount set forth in said schedule. In all other respeqts the account is approved.

Settle order on notice in accordance herewith.