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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50823

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUNTER WILLIAM CRAIGEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-96-CR-64-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 28, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hunter William Craigen appeals his conviction and sentence

for possessing an unregistered machinegun, in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 5861(d). He contends that the statute under which he

was convicted is unconstitutional; that the district court erred

in applying the sentencing guidelines to his case; and that his

conviction should be reversed because the Government failed to

prove that he willfully possessed an unregistered firearm.

Craigen’s contention that § 5861(d) is unconstitutional is

without merit. See United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 261-
No. 97-50823

-2-

62 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 702 (1998); United

States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 179-80 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 933 (1994). Craigen’s argument that the

district court erred in failing to calculate his sentence under

the guidelines designed to punish the nonpayment of taxes is

likewise unpersuasive. See Guidelines Manual, Appendix A; see

also § 2K2.1(a)(5) & comment. 

Craigen’s argument that the Government should have been

required to prove that he willfully possessed an unregistered

machinegun and that his conviction should be reversed because the

Government failed to so prove is precluded by Staples v. United

States, 511 U.S. 600, 619 (1994). Staples requires the

Government to prove only that a defendant knew of a weapon’s

characteristics which brought it within the statutory definition

of “firearm,” not that the defendant knew that the firearm was

unregistered. Id.; see also United States v. Freed, 401 U.S.

601, 607 (1971); United States v. Moschetta, 673 F.2d 96, 100

(5th Cir. 1982). The evidence was sufficient to establish that

Craigen knew the machinegun he possessed was capable of automatic

fire and thus within the statutory definition of “firearm.” 

Craigen has failed to demonstrate any error in connection

with his conviction or sentence. Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment is affirmed.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Arnulfo Jose Castillo, * From the 32nd District Court

 of Nolan County

Trial Court No. 12057.

Vs. No. 11-17-00218-CR * June 28, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Donald Gene DEPUY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-79-335.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 27, 1981.

*372Mikel L. Dunnagan, Hooker, for appellant.

No appearance for the State.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

The appellant was found guilty in the Municipal Court of the City of Hooker, Oklahoma, of a Failure to Yield Ordinance, case no. 8099. On appeal to the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, judgment and sentence of a twenty dollar ($20.00) fine was imposed, their case no. CRM-79-31. An appeal from that judgment and sentence has been lodged in this Court in accordance with Laws 1978, ch. 248, § 1, now 11 O.S.Supp.1980, § 27-132.

It is the appellant’s sole contention that it was error for the district court to overrule both his motion to dismiss, filed on February 16, 1979, and his amended motion to dismiss, filed on February 26, 1979. Both motions were based upon Laws 1977, ch. 256, § 27-129(C),1 the portion of which is pertinent to this appeal reads as follows:

> Upon appeal being filed the judge shall within ten (10) days thereafter certify to the clerk of the appellate court the original papers in the case. If the papers have not been certified to the appellate court, the prosecuting attorney shall take the necessary steps to have the papers certified to the appellate court within twenty (20) days of the judgment, and failure to do so, *except for good cause shown, shall*be grounds for dismissal. . .(Our emphasis)

Judgment and sentence was entered in the Municipal Court on January 24, 1979. On February 2,1979, the appellant filed his notice of appeal. The original papers should have been certified by either February 12 or February 14,1979. That certification did not take place until February 27, 1979.

However, Laws 1977, ch. 256, § 27-129(A) provides as follows:

> An appeal may be taken from a final judgment of the municipal court by the defendant by filing in the district court in the county where the situs of the municipal government is located within ten (10) days from the date of the final judgment a notice of appeal and by *filing a copy of the notice with the municipal court,*(our emphasis)

In the case before this Court, there is no record of the appellant’s filing a copy of his notice of intent to appeal with the municipal court. His allegation of the municipal court’s unreasonable delay in certifying the original papers to the appellate court is, therefore, without merit.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence of the district court is Affirmed.

BUSSEY and CORNISH, JJ., concur.

1

. Now amended as 11 O.S.Supp.1980, § 27-129(C).
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 118 

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the enrollment 

of the bill S. 2330. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 

Mr. TED LIEU of California (for himself, Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana, Ms. 

DEGETTE, and Mr. CURTIS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction 

in the enrollment of the bill S. 2330. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 2330, an Act 

3 to amend the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports 

4 Act to provide for congressional oversight of the board of 

5 directors of the United States Olympic and Paralympic 

6 Committee and to protect amateur athletes from emo7 tional, physical, and sexual abuse, and for other purposes, 

8 the Secretary of the Senate shall— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 118 IH 

1 (1) in subsection (b)(2)(D) of section 220504 of 

2 title 36, United States Code, as amended by section 

3 6(b)(2) of the Act, strike ‘‘percent’’; 

4 (2) in subsection (a)(1)(H) of section 220541 of 

5 title 36 United States Code, as added by section 

6 8(a)(1)(B) of the Act, strike ‘‘in a manner than’’ 

7 and insert ‘‘in a manner that’’; 

8 (3) in subsection (f)(4)(B) of section 220541 of 

9 title 36 United States Code, as added by section 

10 8(a)(1)(E) of the Act, insert ‘‘and the Committee on 

11 the Judiciary’’ after ‘‘the Committee on Energy and 

12 Commerce’’; 

13 (4) amend paragraph (1) of section 220541(g) 

14 of title 36, United States Code, as added by section 

15 8(a)(1)(E) of the Act, to read as follows: 

16 ‘‘(1) MANDATORY PAYMENTS.— 

17 ‘‘(A) FISCAL YEAR 2021.—On January 4, 

18 2021, the corporation shall make a mandatory 

19 payment of $20,000,000 to the Center for oper20 ating costs of the Center for fiscal year 2021. 

21 ‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS.—For 

22 fiscal year 2022 and each year thereafter, the 

23 corporation shall make a mandatory payment of 

24 $20,000,000 to the Center not later than the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 118 IH 

1 close of business on the first regular business 

2 day in January.’’; and 

3 (5) in subsection (h)(2)(C)(iii) of section 

4 220541 of title 36 United States Code, as added by 

5 section 8(a)(1)(E) of the Act, insert ‘‘and the Com6 mittee on the Judiciary’’ after ‘‘the Committee on 

7 Energy and Commerce’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6590

JAMES M. BIVENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID GARRAGHTY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-99-226-7)

Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999

Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Bivens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

April 2, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on April 5, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

James Bivens seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Bivens v. Garraghty, No. CA99-226-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 1999).* 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Bruce Cooperman, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



By:

/s/    BRUCE COOPERMANName:

Bruce CoopermanTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


Date: May 10, 2007



---

|* | 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 International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by International Securities Exchange Holdings, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|** | 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
or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Nichols, Appellant.

(No. 31559

Decided October 20, 1948.)

*Mr. Paul T. Landis,*prosecuting attorney, for appellee.

*Mr. L. Earl 'Ludwig*and *Mr. E. 8. Navarre,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman,. Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT July 16, 2020

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2020U0049 dated July 15, 2020.

Invitation 2020U0049

Catalog 

Lot No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds Sold Bales Sold

Price 

Sold 

(per 

Pound)

CCC 

Revenue 

1 ALTUS, OK Unipet 40,931 89 0.3495 $14,305.38 

4 PADUCAH, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 102414 225 0.3256 $33,346.00 

8 QUANAH, TX Unipet 8,312 18 0.3105 $2,580.88 

9 QUANAH, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 99,129 218 0.3256 $32,276.40 

10 QUANAH, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 57641 127 0.3256 $18,767.91 

11 STATESBORO, 

GA Unipet 14,197 30 0.3051 $4,331.50 

13 STATESBORO, 

GA Unipet 74,719 157 0.3051 $22,796.77 

15 BROWNFIELD, 

TX Unipet 15,899 33 0.3105 $4,936.64 

17 LUBBOCK, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 48,631 99 0.3256 $15,834.25 

20 LUBBOCK, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 14,001 29 0.3256 $4,558.73 

22 PADUCAH, TX ACG Cotton 

Marketing LLC 72953 148 0.3256 $23,753.50 

25 PADUCAH, TX Unipet 50,775 101 0.3298 $16,745.60 

599,602 1274 $194,233.56
**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Serge Atlan, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of INverso Corp.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly 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 upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting.  

Date: May 13, 2005 

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan 

    Serge Atlan

    Chairman
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 China Unistone Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I James Z. Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

      2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ James Z. Li                                       Dated: August 15, 2005
    --------------------------------
    James Z. Li
    Chief Executive Officer
    (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Senate Hearing 114-183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        S. Hrg. 114-183
 
                                [ERRATA]

                    OVERSIGHT OF REGULATORY IMPACTS
                    ANALYSES FOR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                     PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE
                  MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                            OCTOBER 21, 2015
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
                               __________
                               
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

98-668 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 
  Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; 
         DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
                          Washington, DC 20402-0001                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               
                               

                                 ERRATA

    Questions for the record and the witnesses' responses were 
inadvertently omitted from the above hearing. Available in the 
committee's records are questions and responses for the 
following witnesses: Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Mr. William L. 
Kovacs, Mr. Sam Batkins, and Dr. Mary B. Rice.
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Peter Cartwright, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Calpine Generating
Company, LLC and CalGen Finance Corp. (the registrants);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 registrants 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
registrants
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 each of the
registrants, 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; andc.
    
    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 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 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; andb.
    
    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. Date: November 16, 2004 /s/ Peter Cartwright  Chief Executive Officer and President
Calpine Generating Company, LLC
CalGen Finance Corp.