alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LARRY DONNELL OWENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-04-276)

Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 26, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Larry Donnell Owens appeals from his sentence imposed

upon resentencing following his guilty plea to possession of a

firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). The district court had originally

sentenced Owens under the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines

to 108 months incarceration. We remanded the case for resentencing

in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On

remand, the district court imposed a 100-month sentence. Owens’

counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for

appeal, but addressing the reasonableness of the sentence. Owens

was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but

he has not done so. Because our review of the record discloses no

reversible error, we affirm.

We find that the district court properly applied the

sentencing guidelines and considered the relevant sentencing

factors before imposing the 100-month sentence. 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West Supp. 2005); see United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d

540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we find that Owens’

sentence, which is “with the properly calculated [g]uidelines

range,” is reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449,

457 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
- 3 -

omitted), petition for cert. filed, U.S.L.W. (U.S. April

17, 2006) (No. 05-10474).

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore

affirm Owens’ sentence. This 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. 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 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-11307, 333-11277, 333-47581, 333-55823 and333-75611) and the Registration Statement on Form S-3(No. 333-118585) of RemedyTemp, Inc. of our report datedDecember 1, 2004 relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedule, which appears in thisForm 10-K.
**PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**
Orange County, CaliforniaDecember 3, 2004
*

After examining the briefs and the records, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeals are submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted May 21, 2009*

Decided May 28, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2853

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY PHILLIPS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 1004

James B. Zagel,

Judge.

O R D E R

Anthony Phillips suggests several unpersuasive reasons why we should vacate his

conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957.  He

insists, for instance, that district courts lack subject‐matter jurisdiction over all crimes not

committed on federal property.  But district courts in fact have exclusive subject‐matter

jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.”  18 U.S.C. § 3231;

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2853 Page 2

United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir. 2005).  Phillips also contends that the

district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because he is “a natural man, a

Sovereign state born citizen, a private human being.”  This argument is frivolous: a district

court has personal jurisdiction over any defendant brought before it on a federal indictment

charging a violation of federal law.  See, e.g., United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th

Cir. 2008); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003); see also United States

v. Burke, 425 F.3d 400, 408 (7th Cir. 2005) (explaining that defendant’s presence in the

territory of the United States supplies personal jurisdiction).  His remaining claims are too

frivolous to warrant further discussion.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________

WEN CHIANN YEH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

__________________________

2012-3216

__________________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. CH1221110433-W-2.

__________________________

ON MOTION

__________________________

O R D E R

The Merit Systems Protection Board moves for a 30-

day extension of time, until April 1, 2013, to file its principal brief. Wen Yeh opposes.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-3216 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2013
WEN YEH V. MSPB 2

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

Clerk 

s27

Case: 12-3216 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2013
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600274

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

ROD D. TRIPLETT

Culinary Specialist Seaman Apprentice (E-2), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain David M. Harrison, JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Captain James Kresge, USMCR.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 30 December 2016

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, RUGH, and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS FROM
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         313,256
<SECURITIES>                                 1,728,305
<RECEIVABLES>                                  401,300<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,538,471
<PP&E>                                          82,720<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,405,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,545,479
<BONDS>                                        625,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           665
<OTHER-SE>                                     869,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,405,542
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,169,782
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,003,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                339,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                   137,506
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            202,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   202,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.04
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are net of $21,657 allowance for doubtful accounts.
<F2>PP&E is net of $88,937 accumulated depreciation and amortization.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

**Independent Auditors' Consent**The Board of DirectorsAlterra Healthcare Corporation:We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-37737 and 333-45433) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32907 and 333-38595) of Alterra Healthcare Corporation (the Corporation) of our reports dated March 27, 2003 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Alterra Healthcare Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Alterra Healthcare Corporation.As discussed in notes 4 and 8, the Corporation adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Standard (SFAS) No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,* and SFAS No. 144, *Accounting for Impairment or Disposal of Long-lived Assets*”, respectively, on January 1, 2002.Our report dated March 27, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that states, on January 22, 2003, the Corporation filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The uncertainties inherent in the bankruptcy process and the Corporation's recurring losses along with the violations of certain debt covenants and cross covenants violations as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 raise substantial doubt about the Corporation's ability to continue as a going concern. The Corporation is currently operating its business as a debtor-in-possession under the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, and continuation of the Corporation as a going concern is contingent upon, among other things, the confirmation of a plan of reorganization, the ability to comply with all debt covenants, the ability to generate sufficient cash from operations, and the ability to obtain financing sources to meet future obligations. If no reorganization plan is approved, it is possible that the Corporation may be liquidated. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.KPMG LLPChicago, IllinoisMarch 27, 2003
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, the undersigned, as principal financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) theinformation contained in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 19, 2010

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will beretained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8517-8519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for applicable date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, 
tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-
622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; 
Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or 
Assistant Director for Enforcement, Compliance and Analysis, tel.: 202-
622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Actions

    On February 2, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed 
below.

[[Page 8518]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07FE24.002


[[Page 8519]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07FE24.003


    Dated: February 2, 2024.
Bradley T. Smith,
Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the 
Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2024-02497 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v.

VICTOR VAZQUEZ,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00223-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law Number Seven

of El Paso, Texas 

(TC # 2017-DCV-0755)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record, and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Directors 

ICT Group, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-3 (No.333-87912) and registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32623, 333-56187, 333-55702, 333-97357 and 333-111531) of ICT Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ICT Group, Inc. andsubsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and the related financialstatement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of ICT Group, Inc. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 15, 2005
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of AdvancePCS (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I David D. Halbert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/    DAVID D. HALBERT                 
|                                        
|David D. Halbert Chief Executive Officer



July
29, 2003
OF THE ATIORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS 

AUSllN 

,,..: *. ~i:s . 479 

until he ehall have eubecrlbe4 to the conotltutloual oath 0r ai00 and ruch appointment and 

oath &re been filed wlth the county clerk for 

reoord. The amounts allowed to be paid to deputie8, a8rirtantr and employee8 oh611 be paid after 

renaitioa 0r 8ervice out or sala orri00w Salary 

Pun6 P8 PrOVided rOX in thi6 Act. 

" 

. . ." 

Ssotion 19, Article 39120, Vanon* Aanotato6 Cirll 

StatUtO8, 18 applicable to countirr harillg a population in 

l XCa88 Or 19o,ooo inhabItaRt8, aCCOrding t0 the &8t pmCOding Fedora1 Canw8. Barar County ha8 a popu1atIon In exe081 

Oi 190,000 inhabitant8 aCCordin& to the h8t prOO&ng PedUal census. Therefore, Paragraph H, 3ectloa 19, Article sl30, 

8Upra, i8 applicable t0 Bexar COUUty. Al60 CCUllt~ OfriOial8 

or Bexar county are compmsatd on a raluy ba8fr. 

H, Seotlon 

We bare bosn unable to find any 0tl.I. where Paragraph 

19, Article 3913e, supra, hark been oonstrued by 

the appellate court*. However, in *low 0r the Z'oragoIng atatute, you era reepoctrully aavfaea test .ft 18 the opinion 0r 

thf8 ~pfWtm8nt that the CcUnty jud30 Or Bemr County, in cornplia~o with said Paragraph H, Section 19, Article bl)lBe, 

8Upra, I!&!$' appOi!it 65 EIMY a88iltent8 OF mp1O]ree8 WbOn the 

8enioao or such are required in the p6rronunae 0r hi8 dUth8 

88 the Ccmmi8sioaerr* Court, in itc discretion, may detumine 

PfOpU, provided the salaries Or euch a88ietant8 Or employorr 

ahall not exoeed the praxlmum allowed in the abova etatuts. 

hU8tinfJ that the r0rrgdng tulip an8wera POIlE 

quizy, we am 

Yours very truly 

Al-TORNEY OZaERAL OP TEXAS 

IUAW:ob
Exhibit 99.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF  TBX RESOURCES, INC.  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TBX Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tim P. Burroughs, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/TIM P. BURROUGHSPresident and Chief Executive Officer
October 15, 2002 | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---

QuickLinks
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke v. Jamil James Kantara

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 4

- 00 0 82

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 11

- 46281

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

A ppellant, Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke

, has filed a “M otion t o Abate Appeal and Remand to Trial Court for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Attorney’s Fees” and an “Unopposed Amended Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand to Trial Court for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Attorney’s Fees.” We grant appellant’s amended motion to abate and dismiss as moot appellant’s motion to abate.

By her motion to abate, appellant requested that we abate the appe al to allow “the trial court to enter findings of fact and conclusion s of law in support of the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees.” In her amended motion to abate, appellant states that the trial court signed the proposed findings of fact and conclusi ons of law on March 27 , 2014. Appellant now requests that the Court “abate the appeal and remand to the trial court for a hearing on appellant’s motion

to extend the post

-

judgment deadlines and for consideration of appellant’s request for additional

findin gs of fact and conclusions of law.” We grant appellant’s amended motion to abate the appeal

. Accordingly, this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court to immediately hold a hearing on appellant’s motion to extend post

- judgment deadlines , or any ot her appropriate
motion, and for consideration of appellant’s request for additional findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court clerk is orde red to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders on appellant’s motion to extend post

- j udgment deadlines or any other appropriate motion, and any additional findings of fact and conclusions of law within 45 days of the date of this order.

Appellant’s motion to abate appeal, filed on March 10, 2014, is dismissed as moot.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket without further order of the Court when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed with this Court.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 16, 2014