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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 5, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51204

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BURNIS ALLEN CARRIGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-02-CR-107-1)

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

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Burnis Carrigan was convicted by a jury of

being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). Carrigan argues on appeal that the evidence was

insufficient to support the verdict.

In an insufficiency claim, we review the evidence to determine

whether any rational trier of fact could have found that it

establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.

Burns, 162 F.3d 840, 847 (5th Cir. 1998). In evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence, we view all evidence and all

reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to

the government. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 168-69

(5th Cir. 1999). As Carrigan properly preserved this issue by

moving for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s

case and at the close of all evidence, our review is plenary. See

United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Our review of the record convinces us that the testimony

introduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find Carrigan

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Burns, 162 F.3d at 847.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KENNETH DUNCAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:06-cr-01208-PMD-4)

Submitted: November 12, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell W. Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alston Calhoun Badger, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Kenneth Lee Duncan appeals his conviction and sentence. Duncan pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to distribute, and distribution of a mixture or substance containing fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. Duncan’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising several issues regarding Duncan’s sentence. Duncan has filed a pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file a brief. Finding no meritorious issues, we affirm.

Counsel asserts on Duncan’s behalf that the district court erred in finding Duncan culpable for over 500 grams of methamphetamine, in applying a two level enhancement for possession of a weapon, and in declining to grant Duncan a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We have thoroughly

reviewed the record and find no error in Duncan’s sentence. See

United States v. Green , 436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied , 547 U.S. 1156 (2006). In addition, we have considered the issues raised by Duncan in his pro se supplemental brief and find the arguments to be without merit.

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

We therefore affirm Duncan’s conviction and sentence. This

23 court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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 Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Whaley, as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Ronald L. Whaley   
|Ronald L. Whaley       
|Chief Operating Officer
|November 5, 2004
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 15, 2016 521894 

________________________________

In the Matter of GARY WATERS, 

Appellant, 

v

CENTRAL OFFICE REVIEW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMITTEE OF THE DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS AND 

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION 

et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 8, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Gary Waters, New York City, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fisher, J.),

entered October 2, 2015 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent Central

Office Review Committee denying petitioner's grievance. 

Petitioner filed a grievance that sought limited credit

time allowance for his participation in a training program, which

time credit would render petitioner qualified to be conditionally

released six months prior to his conditional release date. 

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging

the denial of said grievance by respondent Central Office Review

Committee. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal

ensued. During the pendency of this appeal, petitioner was

released from prison, rendering this proceeding moot (see Matter

of Levola v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1191, 1191 [2011]; Matter of La Tour
-2- 521894 

v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. Cent. Off. Review

Comm., 5 AD3d 890, 891 [2004]). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded

by petitioner's contention that this matter falls within the

exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v

Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 713 [1980]). 

Peters, P.J., Lynch, Devine, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit
10.9


 


SECURITIES
SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


		TO:	The
                                            Directors of Aquarius I Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”).



 


The
undersigned hereby subscribes for 1,437,500 ordinary shares (the “Shares”) of the Company. In
consideration for the issue of the Shares, the undersigned hereby agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company.


 


The
undersigned agrees to take the Shares subject to the Memorandum & Articles of Association of the Company and authorizes you to enter
the following name and address in the stockholder ledger of the Company:


 


	 	Name: 	Aquarius Sponsor Ltd.
	 	Address: 	Ritter House, Wickhams Cay II, PO Box 3170
	 		Road Town, Tortola VG1110
	 		British Virgin Islands



 


AQUARIUS SPONSOR LTD.

 


	Signed: 	/s/ Sze Hau Lee	 
	Name:	Sze Hau Lee	 
	Title:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	April 20, 2021	 


 


Accepted:


 


AQUARIUS
I ACQUISITION CORP.


 





	Signed: 	/s/ Sze Hau Lee	 
	Name:	Sze Hau Lee	 
	Title:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	April 20, 2021
Dated
as of August 16, 2005


DG Acquisition
Corp.
420 Lexington Avenue
 Suite 2650
 New York, New York
10170

		
	 	Re:    DG Acquisition Corp.
("Company")


Gentlemen:

        Each of the undersigned hereby waives its, his or her
right to exercise conversion rights with respect to any shares of the
Company's common stock owned by the undersigned, directly or
indirectly, and agrees that it, he or she will not seek conversion with
respect to such shares in connection with any vote to approve a
business combination (as is more fully described in the Company's
Prospectus relating to the Company's initial public
offering).

		
	 	Very truly yours,


		
	 	DRAKE FAMILY CAPITAL
    APPRECIATION
TRUST


		
	 	By:                                          


         Name: John C. Drake

         Title: Trustee


		
	 	GRAHAM FAMILY TRUST II


		
	 	By:                                          


         Name: Hume Steyer

         Title: Trustee


		
	 	                                      


Mark R. Graham


		
	 	                                      


Peter Getz


		
	 	                                      


Jay Freeman


		
	 	                                      


Ron Schmichel


		
	 	                                      


Richard Schwartz


		
	 	                                      


John P. Manley


		
	 	                                      


Gina Giaquinto


		
	 	                                      


Katie Murphy


		
	 	                                      


Mark Tassie
[No. 13883-6-III.

Division Three.

June 6, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Antonio D. Green, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 93-1-50203-5, Craig Matheson, J., entered January 18, 1994. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Munson and Schultheis, JJ.
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Monthly Inventory Report

As of August 31, 2021

(Million Units Except as Noted)

CCC Commodity 

Unit of 

Measure

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2019

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2020

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2021

CCC-Owned 

Inventory

(Actual Units)

Butter Pounds - - - -

Cheese Pounds - - - -

Nonfat Dry Milk Pounds - - - -

Barley Bushels 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 

Corn Bushels 1.3 58.3 2.7 0.0 

Oats Bushels 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 

Sorghum Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 

Soybeans Bushels 0.1 9.5 0.0 0.0 

Wheat Bushels 0.0 8.0 1.5 0.0 

Rice Cwt. 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 

Refined Sugar Pounds 0.0 331.5 0.0 0.0 

 In-process Beet Pounds 0.0 221.0 0.0 0.0 

Raw Cane Sugar Pounds 0.0 256.3 0.0 0.0 

 In-process Cane Pounds - - - -

Honey Pounds 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.0 

Peanuts

Tons (not 

millions) 0.0 299,000.0 500.0 0.0 

Canola Seed* Cwt. 8.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 

Crambe* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Flaxseed* Cwt. 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 

Mustard Seed* Cwt. 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 

Rapeseed* Cwt. - - - -

Safflower Seed* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sesame Seed* Cwt. - - - -

Sunflower Seed (Oil)* Cwt. 0.0 105.0 0.0 0.0 

Sunflower Seed (Other)* Cwt. 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 

Dry Peas* Cwt. 0.0 269.0 21.0 0.0 

Lentils* Cwt. 0.0 46.0 1.0 0.0 

Chickpeas* Cwt. 0.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 

Upland Cotton

1,000 

Running 

Bales 100 411,200 0 0 

ELS Cotton

1,000 

Running 

Bales 100 46,800 0 0 
Notes: 

• *Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

• CCC acquired 2019 Crop Year Upland (if not specified) and ELS cotton as a result of the 

following months' forfeited Marketing Assistance Loans:

o 12 bales from August 2020; 59 bales from September 2020; 120 bales from October

2020; 135 Upland and 351 ELS bales from November 2020; 876 Upland and 18 ELS 

bales from December 2020; 48 bales from January 2021; and 18 bales from March 2021 

maturing loans. 

o There were multiple invitations that sold 12 bales in September; 59 bales in October; 77 

bales in November; 70 Upland bales and 351 ELS bales in December; 984 Upland bales 

and 18 ELS bales in January; 35 bales in March; 520 bales in April; 192 bales in May;

130 bales in June; and 2 bales in July. 

o In total, there were 0 bales of cotton in inventory on August 31, 2021.

• CCC also acquired 2019 Crop Year peanuts as a result of the following months' forfeited 

Marketing Assistance Loans:

o 20.55 tons from September 2020, 39.77 tons from October 2020, and 7.19 tons from 

January 2021. 

o Total CCC peanut forfeitures for Crop Year 2019 were 67.51 tons. CCC sold 20.55 tons 

from Invitation 20, 39.77 tons from Invitation 21, and 7.19 tons from Invitation 22. 

o In total, there were 0.00 tons of peanuts in inventory as of August 31, 2021.

Report Completed: September 22, 2021.
# Table 2bQtr North-Hamburg

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 99-1271

PAUL E. LUYSTER, APPELLANT,

V.

HERSHEL W. GOBER,

ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and HOLDAWAY, Judges.

O R D E R

On August 29, 2000, this Court affirmed a May 5, 1999, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)

decision which had denied as not well grounded the appellant's claim for service connection for a

bilateral eye disability, other than a corneal scar of the left eye and scars under both eye lids. The

Court's decision was based upon the Board's determination that the record contained no competent

medical nexus evidence. On September 19, 2000, the appellant, through counsel, filed a motion

pursuant to Rule 35(b) of this Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure for a panel decision revoking

the Court's August 29, 2000, decision, vacating the Board's May 5, 1999, decision, and remanding

the matter.

Subsequent to the Court's August 29, 2000, decision, the Veteran's Claims Assistance Act

of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) [hereinafter VCAA], was enacted. The

VCAA, among other things, amended 38 U.S.C. § 5107 to eliminate the well-grounded claim

requirement. Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) ofthe VCAA, that amendment to section 5107 is applicable

to "any claim . . . filed before the date of the enactment of [the VCAA] and not final as of that date."

Accordingly, because the Board denied the appellant's claim as not well grounded, a remand is

required in order to provide the Board with an opportunity to readjudicate the appellant's claim. See

generally Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308, 312-13 (1991) (when law or regulation changes after

claim has been submitted, but before administrative or judicial appeal process has been concluded,

law which is most favorable to plaintiff must be applied). 

On remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument necessary to the

resolution of his claim. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372 (1999). The Board shall

proceed expeditiously. See Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108

Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (requiring Secretary to provide for

"expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board or Court); Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251,

257 (1997). Moreover, if the circumstances warrant, the Board is authorized and obligated to

remand the claim to the regional office for further development. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(a) (1999);

Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). 
Upon consideration of the forgoing it is

ORDERED that the appellant's motion for a panel decision is granted. It is further

ORDERED that the Court's August 29, 2000, decision in this matter is withdrawn, the

Board's May 5, 1999, decision is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for readjudication.

DATED: November 20, 2000 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Solo Cup Company (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended September 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Korzenski, as Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert M. Korzenski
|Robert M. Korzenski    
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 12, 2009
OAR Box 1394 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

54) ll-C-24 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/3/2008 7:52:01 AM Sheet 54 of 56 

p.1 
P,2_ 

A-94-52 

*£% \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

t ^ ^ £ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

I -±\\/-Z-. / Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

\ ' # 

^ P 0 8 1993 

Mr. Steve McNally 

Director of Government Affairs 

Composites Fabricators Assn 

1735 North Lynn St 

Suite 950 

Arlington, Virginia 22209-2022 

Dear Steve: 

Thank you for your letter expressing concern regarding the 

representativeness of the mailing list for the composites 

industry screening survey. We certainly agree that many of the 

companies in the mailing list are not fabricators or are not at 

all related to the source category for which we are developing 

this regulation. 

Be assured that any data we have for these companies will 

not be used in the development of the national emission standard 

for hazardous air pollutants(NESHAP). The majority of the 

mailing list, however, contains companies in the business of 

manufacturing composites and these will indeed be subject to the 

hazardous air pollutant standard that we are developing. This 

majority does accurately represent the industry in that we have 

attempted to identify all facilities encompassing the industry. 

I would like to explain briefly how the mailing list was 

developed. .As you know, there are no standard industrial 

classification (SIC) codes that are all inclusive of the 

composite manufacturers or exclusive of other manufacturing 

processes. In fact, the industry encompasses about 50 SIC codes 

and within most of these codes, the number of manufacturers of 

composites total a very small percentage of the total facilities. 

A reasonable and relatively quick method to develop a list was to 

compile facility names and addresses from four sources of 

information: the list of members of the Society of Plastics 

Industry under the composites section, the list you provided for 

the Composites Fabricators Association, a subset of the members 

of the Suppliers of Advanced Composite Materials Association and 

styrene-emitting facilities in the 50 SIC codes from the Toxics 

Release Inventory database. We realize that the extremely small 

shops that do not report to the TRI nor belong to trade 

associations were not surveyed. However, it is likely that these 

are not major sources and will possibly not be subject to the 

standard. 
P.3 

In summary, we are confident that the survey, in conjunction 

with the site visits, literature search and the assistance of the 

Clean Air Management Partnership, will provide an accurate and 

pertinent information to support development of the NESHAP. We 

appreciate your assistance in the project and look forward to 

continue to work with you to develop a regulation that is 

realistic and workable, as well as protective of the environment. 

Sincerely, 

Madeleine L. Strum 

Chemical Application Section 

Chemicals and Petroleum Branch 

i-
EXHIBIT
35.1



SERVICER
COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re:
Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing
Agreement, dated as of September 1, 2021, among Mercedes-Benz Auto Receivables Trust 2021-1, as Issuer, Daimler Retail Receivables
LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”),
for the period from September 22, 2021, to December 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”).



I,
Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A
                                         review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance
                                         under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its
                                         obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
                                         Period.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 24, 2022





| | /s/
    Brian T. Stevens                
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Name: Brian T. Stevens                  
| | Title: Vice President
    and Controller
[Nos. 18010-3-II; 18639-0-II.

Division Two.

May 31, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Wayne Kincaid, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Michael W. Kincaid.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 93-1-03298-8, Thomas R. Sauriol, J., entered January 25, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Hough-ton, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2014

In re: ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,

Petitioner,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gene Trappier, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gene Trappier petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. Our review of 

the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has 

denied Trappier’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED