alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40109 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SIXTO CORTINAS-ALDAPE, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CR-695-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Sixto Cortinas-Aldape p leaded guilty to being f ound unlawfully p r esent in the United States following deportation after conviction of an a ggravated felony and was sentenced to 57 months in prison to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release. For the first t ime on appeal, Cortinas-Aldape argues t hat his sentence was improperly enhanced by 16 levels under United States Sent e n cing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I) based on his prior f ederal conviction for conspiracy to possess U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May1, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40109 Document: 00512226180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/01/2013No. 12-40109

with intent t o d i s t ribute c ocaine. He maintains that because his prior conspiracy conviction under 2 1 U.S.C. § 8 46 d oes no t r equire an overt act, t h e prior conviction does not c omport wi t h the generic, contemporary meaning of conspiracy, and the prior conviction should not have been used as a basis for the 16-level enhancement. We review C ortinas-Aldape’s arguments for p lain error. See United States

v. Rodriguez-Escareno , 700 F.3d 751, 753 (5th Cir. 2012). The prior conviction used to s upport the enhancement in this case was based on 21 U.S.C. § § 846 and 841. In c onsidering whether a prior federal conviction for c o nspiracy to commit

a drug trafficking offense will justify a n enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(I),

we need look n o further than the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Id. a t 753-54. We have h eld in this situation that th e “Guidelines themselves, reasonably interpreted,” s upport the enhancement. Id. at 754. Acc o r d ingly, the district court in this case did not e rr, plain or otherwise, in applying the enhancement. Id. at 754-55. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40109 Document: 00512226180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/01/2013
# Monroe - Appalachian Regional Commission

- New River Gorge: America’s Newest National Park ARC investments help communities and entrepreneurs sustainably leverage this incredible asset.  The post New River Gorge: America’s Newest National Park appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Region I–Planning and Development Council Executive Director Jason Roberts Email &#x6a;&#x61;&#x73;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x72;&#x6f;&#98;&#101;&#114;&#116;&#115;&#64;reg&#x69;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#x65;&#x70;&#x64;&#99;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#103;The post Region I–Planning and Development Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



|I, Brian R. Neill, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|6.                              
|                                
|7.                              
|                                
|8.                              
|                                
|9.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|10.                             
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                



|Date: August 14, 2012 |                                        
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------
|                      |                                        
|                      | /s/ Brian R. Neill                     
|                      | Brian R. Neill, Chief Financial Officer







---
EX-32.2 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



EXHIBIT 32.2



I, Jack R. Lazar, the chief financial officer of Atheros Communications, Inc. (the
Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge,:



|(i) | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: August 9, 2004



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jack R. Lazar                           
|Jack R. Lazar                               
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Dynamic Oil & Gas, Inc. - Exhibit 4(vii)






AMENDED SCHEDULE “A” 


Amended as of the 30th day of September, 2004. 


Employee 

	 Salary:  	 $197,600 per annum 
      

	 	 
	 Holidays:  	 Six weeks per annum  

	 	 
	 Entities:  	 Redcorp Ventures Ltd. - Director 
      

	 	 
	 Other Benefits:  	 Medical, dental, AD&D and
        life insurance coverage provided to all senior management. 






DYNAMIC OIL & GAS, INC. 

 Per: 

	  	
      /s/ Wayne Babcock  	 	  
	  	Authorized Signatory 	 	  
	 	 	 	 
	  	
      /s/ Michael Bardell  	 	
      /s/ Wayne Babcock  
	  	Authorized Signatory  	 	 Wayne Babcock (Employee)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Goode, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered January 17, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence that his conduct occurred under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, because there was no proof that he appreciated the risks attendant to that conduct. We disagree.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Here, where the defendant struck the 14-year-old victim with an automobile, and then bludgeoned her head and face with a tire-jack with enough force to produce the skull fractures sustained, the defendant created a grave risk of the girl’s death and did cause her death under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life *(see,*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; *People v Roe,*74 NY2d 20, 24; *People v Register,*60 NY2d 270, 274, *cert denied*466 US 953; *People v Curry,*158 AD2d 466, 467).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
### SENDER:**Complate items** **and/or for** **additional services.** **Complete items** **3,4a, and** **4b. Print** **your name** **and address** **on the** **reverse of** **this form** **so that** **we can** **return this** **card to** **you. Attach** **this form** **to the** **front of** **the mailptoce,** **or on** **tho back** **if space** **does not** **permit. Write** **'Return Receipt** **Requested" on** **tho maUptoco** **below the** **article number.** **The Return** **Receipt will** **show lo** **whom tho** **articfo was** **delivered and** **the date** **dehvarod.**

### also**wish to** **receive the** **follow ing** **services (for** **an extra** **fee):**

### Addressee's**Address**

### 2.**Restricted Delivery** **3. Article** **Addressed ttf** **14a. Article** **Numho**

## 7005**DDb?**

# (^signature**(Addressee or** **Agent) "«ET>jSvfce** **Type .^** 

## S^egistered**QtSertified Express^Jatf** **Insured**

## r^^eMnTReceipt**for Merchandise** **DCOD 7.** **Date of** **Delivery**

### 8.**Addressee's Address** **(Only if** **requested and** **fee is** **paid)**

### PS**Form 3811,** **December 1994** **102595-39-B0223 Domestic** **Return Receipt** 

## United**States Postal Service** **CALL EN** **TX**

## :,**COURT OF** **APPEALS DISTF'** 

# /:A-REEVES**JUSTICE CENTER** 

# ^9/HOLORCSA**SUITE 3200** **), TEXAS** **78205**
# C_2009180EN.01002402.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/24

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano, Italy) — Rita Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

(Case C-217/08) (1)

1

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Equal treatment in employment matters - Articles 12 EC and 13 EC - Grant of survivor’s benefit - National provision laying down differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving cohabitees)

2009/C 180/41

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rita Mariano

Applicant:

Defendant: Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Milano — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 EC — Equal treatment in employment matters — Grant of survivor’s benefit — National provision laying down differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving partners who were in a life partnership.

Operative part

Operative part

The application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Community law of all discrimination is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no link with Community law. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, no such link arises from Articles 12 EC and 13 EC in themselves.

Those articles do not preclude, in those circumstances, national rules under which, in the event of the death of a person as a result of an accident, a pension amounting to 50 % of the remuneration received by that person before his death is paid solely to his surviving spouse and the infant child of the deceased receives only a pension amounting to 20 % of that remuneration.

---

(1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent



The Stockholders and Board of Directors
Bogen Communications International, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-21245) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-99662) on Form S-3 of Bogen Communications
International, Inc. of our report dated March 18, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of Bogen Communications International, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended and related financial statement schedules for 1997, which report appears
in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Bogen Communications
International, Inc. Our report expresses reliance on the report of other
auditors.


                                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
March 30, 1998
Exhibit
10.21


 


MOCON, INC.


 


DESCRIPTION
OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR


COMPENSATION
ARRANGEMENTS


 


 


Retainer and
Meeting Fees.  Each of the
non-employee directors of MOCON, Inc. receives a retainer fee of $600 per month
without regard to the number of board of directors or committee meetings held
or attended by such director, along with an additional $400 for each board
meeting or committee meeting attended in person, and $200 for each board
meeting or committee meeting attended via telephone. In addition, the Chairman
of the Audit Committee receives a fee of $100 per month.


 


Stock Options. 
Non-employee directors are granted options to purchase shares of MOCON
common stock from time to time in the sole discretion of the board of
directors.


 


Director Retirement Plan.  Pursuant to the MOCON, Inc. Director
Retirement Plan, a non-employee director who has served on the board of
directors of MOCON for at least five years will, upon retirement, receive an
amount equal to the annual retainer fee such director would have been entitled
to receive during the fiscal year in which such director’s retirement
occurs.  This payment, however, will not
be made to a director who, following his or her retirement, continues to serve
as a consultant to MOCON or any of its subsidiaries.  Any amount payable under this retirement plan
will be paid as determined by the MOCON board of directors in its sole
discretion following such director’s retirement.


 


Reimbursement of
Expenses.  Non-employee
directors are reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in attending board and
committee meetings.
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 Annual Report of Castelle (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott C. McDonald,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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/ Scott C. McDonald
       Name:  Scott C. McDonald
       Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

       Date: April 15, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Castelle and will be retained by Castelle and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      E-6
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, James G. Stewart, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             [Not applicable]

 

c)              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d)             Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Dated: November 14, 2005 |   | /s/ James G. Stewart |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------|
|                     |   |                 | James G. Stewart |
|                     |   |                 | Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
# Mercer - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Jill Foys Email &#160;&#x6a;&#x69;&#x6c;&#108;&#102;&#64;n&#x6f;&#x72;&#x74;&#104;&#119;es&#x74;&#x70;&#x61;&#46;&#111;rgThe post Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8566

TERRY LEE MCCLAIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; J. T. GALBREATH, PNC,

BYDIR, OIC, Dispersing Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-95-415-3-MU)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lee McClain, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. However, we affirm the district court's dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988) on the grounds that Appellant's complaint,

filed ten years after the cause of action had accrued, is timebarred. 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
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4366 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to make payments to individuals entitled to educational assistance 

under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance program who pursue a program of education solely through distance learning to be used to purchase 

computers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2017 

Mrs. TORRES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make payments to individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post9/11 Educational Assistance program who pursue a program of education solely through distance learning to 

be used to purchase computers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘GI Bill Distance 

5 Learning Improvement Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4366 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PAYMENT TO DISTANCE LEARNERS 

2 UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

3 POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PRO4 GRAM FOR PURCHASE OF COMPUTER. 

5 Section 3313 of title 38, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following new sub7 section: 

8 ‘‘(j) ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF COM9 PUTERS FOR DISTANCE LEARNERS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall make a 

11 one-time payment to an individual pursuing a pro12 gram of education solely through distance learning 

13 on more than a half-time basis in an amount of 

14 $500 to be used for the purchase of a computer for 

15 use in pursuing such program of education. 

16 ‘‘(2) APPLICATION.—To be eligible for a pay17 ment under this subsection, an individual shall sub18 mit to the Secretary an application containing such 

19 information and assurances as the Secretary may re20 quire.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### ROBERT RUPPRECHT, PROSECUTOR-APPELLANT, v. JOHN J. DRANEY, MAGISTRATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued February 14, 1949

Decided February 21, 1949.

*Mr. Ralph W. Chandless*argued the cause for the prosecutor-appellant *{Mr. George I. MarniSj*attorney).

*Mr. Donald M. Waesche*argued the cause for the defendants-respondents.

*Mr. Walter H. Jones*filed a brief amicus curiae.

*408Per Curiam.

The judgment will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Donges in the former Supreme Court.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Waoheneeld, Burling, and Ackerson—7.

*For reversal:*None.