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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-10692

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY CRENSHAW, also known as Ant,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-128-2-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

June 3, 1998

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court appointed counsel for Anthony Crenshaw has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. 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):



1. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. 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:  February 21, 2008 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                     
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------
|                         | Marc N. Teal, Chief
Financial Officer
155 P.3d 689

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### State v. Akahi

27541

01/04/2007

Reversed
Exhibit No. 99.2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.



The following certification is provided by the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of MAF Bancorp, Inc. on the basis of such officers knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





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 Annual Report of MAF Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2003, (the
Report), I, Jerry A. Weberling, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of 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:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    JERRY A.
WEBERLINGName: Jerry A. Weberling Title: Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer Date: March 10, 2003
CHAPTER 11.2.**INFECTION WITH *BONAMIA EXITIOSA***

[...]

Article 11.2.1.

For the purposes of the *Aquatic Code*, infection with *Bonamia exitiosa* means *infection* with the *pathogenic agent*~~B.~~*Bonamia exitiosa*of the Family Haplosporidiidae.

Information on methods for *diagnosis* is provided in the *Aquatic Manual*.

Article 11.2.2.

**Scope**

The recommendations in this chapter apply to the following species that meet the criteria for listing as susceptible in accordance with Chapter 1.5.: Argentinean flat oyster (*Ostrea puelchana*), Australian mud oyster *(Ostrea angasi),*~~and~~ Chilean flat oyster *(Ostrea chilensis),*Dwarf oyster*(Ostrea stentina),*Eastern oyster*(Crassostrea virginica),*European flat oyster*(Ostrea edulis),*Olympia oyster*(Ostrea lurida)*and Suminoe oyster*(Crassostrea ariakensis**).*~~These recommendations also apply to any other~~*~~susceptible species~~*~~referred to in the~~*~~Aquatic Manual~~*~~when traded internationally.~~

[...]

**________________________**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,982,000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,362,000                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,021,000                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,645,000                       0
<PP&E>                                      36,778,000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,771,000                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,157,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,254,000                       0
<BONDS>                                     24,199,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        11,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 139,693,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,157,000                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            61,403,000             195,266,000
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,113,000             150,850,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,832,000              37,356,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             668,000               2,073,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,999,000               5,596,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,028,000               2,575,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            971,000               3,021,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   971,000               3,021,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09                     .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09                     .27
        

</TABLE>
***Exhibit 24.01 – Power of Attorney***POWER OF ATTORNEY     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature appears belowconstitutes and appoints Jeffrey M. Stibel and Gonzalo Troncoso, and each of them, his lawfulattorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place andstead, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments to the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Web.com, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006 and to file the same, with all exhibitsthereto and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,granted unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to doand perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about thepremises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifyingand confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or his or theirsubstitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.     **Signature** **Title** **Date**     /s/  Jeffrey M. Stibel Jeffrey M. Stibel  ChiefExecutive Officer(principal executive officer) March 20, 2007     /s/  Gonzalo Troncoso Gonzalo Troncoso  ExecutiveVice President andChief Financial Officer(principal accounting officer) March 20, 2007     /s/  John B. Balousek John B. Balousek  Director March 20, 2007     /s/  John Patrick Crecine John Patrick Crecine  Director March 20, 2007     /s/  Alex Kazerani Alex Kazerani  Director March 20, 2007     /s/  Robert T. Slezak Robert T. Slezak  Director March 20, 2007     /s/  Seymour Holtzman Seymour Holtzman  Chairmanof the Board of Directors March 20, 2007     /s/  Efrem Gerszberg Efrem Gerszberg  Director March 20, 2007
E-14
#### Fairechild v. United Airlines, Inc.

18726

1/16/97

Affirmed
# C_2021349EN.01002401.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Benavides Torres v Council

(Case T-245/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, V. Piessevaux, P. Mahnič and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/90 of 22 January 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 14) and, second, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/88 of 22 January 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 16 I, p. 6), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Antonio José Benavides Torres to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 11.6.2018.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40959 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GENARO BARRENO

- CUJUY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15

- CR

- 156

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Genaro Barreno

Cujuy 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). Barreno

- Cujuy h a s not filed a r esponse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40959 Document: 00513473084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 40959

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to with draw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40959 Document: 00513473084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6914

RESTONEY ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; TOMMY LEE

TINSLEY; WALTER JOHNSON; PAUL B. CALHOUN;

HOWARD L. WOOTEN; W. PERRY MCNAIR; R. G.

WAULER; CARRIE A. MOCK; PARRY H. LEARY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-96-1)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Attorney General of North

Carolina, No. CA-96-1 (M.D.N.C. May 14, 1996). 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
23





Consent
Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
333-119638, 333-111004, 333-109220, 333-70862, 333-45750, 333-88899, 333-43117,
333-22323, 033-56145, and 033-56147 on Form S-8 and in the Registration
Statements No. 333-145671, 333-91966, and 333-98741 on Form S-3 of Charming
Shoppes, Inc., of our report dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Charming Shoppes, Inc., and our report
dated March 31, 2009, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Charming Shoppes, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2009.

















/S/
      ERNST & YOUNG LLP











Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 31,
2009
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Lorenza Dondra Andrews, Appellant

No. 06-22-00033-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2020F00251). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be 

permanently abated. Therefore, we permanently abate this appeal.

We note that costs of the appeal are waived.

RENDERED OCTOBER 19, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Carcass Management 

If carcasses are found 

as a result of:

Responsibility rests 

with Local/State. 

Federal support 

coordination:

Under legal authority 

conferred by:

Consistent with the 

NRP (National 

Response Plan):

Assistance may be 

provided by:

Contamination with 

Hazardous Material or 

Pollutant/Contaminant

EPA CERCLA/RCRA

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, 

Liability Act and Resources 

Conservation Recovery Act

ESF #10 Annex

Oil and Hazardous Materials

State Ag, Wildlife, 

Public Health and Solid 

Waste Authorities, Local 

Resources, Industry

Foreign Animal Disease USDA APHIS AHPA

Animal Health Protection Act

ESF #11 Annex

Agriculture and Natural 

Resources

State Ag, Wildlife, 

Public Health, and Solid 

Waste Authorities, Local 

Resources, Industry

Routine Mortalities Owner/Operator:

Federal agencies not 

involved

Local Resources, 

Industry

Natural Disaster 

Resulting in 

Uncontaminated 

Mortalities – Debris 

Removal

Depends on DHS/FEMA 

Mission Assignment:

Federal agencies who 

have been involved in 

the past include USDA 

NRCS, EPA, and DoD 

Army Corps of 

Engineers

USDA NRCS - EWPP

Emergency Watershed 

Protection Program

EPA - RCRA

Resource Conservation Recovery 

Act

DoD - ACOE – NEPA

National Environmental Policy 

Act

Depends on the FEMA 

Mission Assignment

State Ag, Wildlife, 

Public Health, and Solid 

Waste Authorities, Local 

Resources, Industry, 

HHS, DOI

Natural Disaster 

Resulting in Oil/Hazmat 

Contamination

EPA CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, 

Liability Act

ESF #10 Annex State Ag, Wildlife, 

Public Health, and Solid 

Waste Authorities, Local 

Resources, Industry

Marine Mortalities NMFS (National Marine 

Fisheries Service –

NOAA (National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration)

MMPA

Marine Mammal Protection Act

DOI

• Industry refers to disposal technologies including but not limited to rendering, incineration, digestion, and composting.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2014

- Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NE

- 05

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and th en out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### RB211 Trent 5 00 EEC update 1 .0 $ 85.00 $ 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.0 0 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Es timated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### ASE Estimate pulled from aircraft registry

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory act ion”?
YES * NO

* Explan ation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.
YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportati on?
YES * NO



### * Explan ation 

### :
#### Brott v. Brott

23921

04/29/2002

Affirmed