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

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29,      2008  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                        |                               |                                                |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                        | PAPERWEIGHT      DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|                        |                               |                                                |
| Dated:      August 11, 2008 |                               |        /s/ Mark R. Richards                    |
|                        | Name:                              | Mark      R. Richards                               |
|                        | Title:                             | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |

----

----
#### Claude SLAUGHTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 31699.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1960.

Mays & Jacobs, by J. C. Jacobs, Corsi-cana, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

On a former day of this term the judgment of conviction herein was affirmed and appellant’s first and second motions for rehearing were overruled.

Our attention has now been called to what appears to be a fatal defect in the jury’s verdict. Our prior opinions are therefore withdrawn and the following substituted.

The third count of the indictment alleged the unlawful possession of ethyl morphine, a narcotic drug.

The verdict of the jury which the trial court received and upon which the judgment of conviction was based recites that the jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment “at confinement in the State Penitentiary for Five (5).”

The verdict assessed no definite punishment and for that reason is fatally defective. Cooper v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 126 S.W.2d 974; McCarty v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 317 S.W.2d 748; Bumpass v. State, 160 Tex. Cr.R. 423, 271 S.W.2d 953.

The authorities cited are controlling and require that the conviction be set aside.

The order affirming the conviction is set aside and the judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02390]



[[Page 8081]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; FCC 23-86; FR ID 200645]


Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band; and Expanding Flexible Use in 
Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register on January 8, 2024. The 
document issued a final rule permitting very low power (VLP) devices in 
the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 MHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 MHz) portions of 
the 6 GHz band. This document corrects an error in one section of the 
final rule.

DATES: Effective March 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, at (202) 418-0636, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84caede7ecebe8e5f7aacbf6ebf7c4e2e7e7aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe1c6ccc7c0c3cedc81e0ddc0dcefc9cccc81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2023-28006, appearing on page 874 
in the Federal Register of Monday, January 8, 2024, make the following 
correction.

0
On page 891, in the first column, in Sec.  15.407, paragraph (d)(6) is 
corrected to read as follows:


Sec.  15.407  [Corrected]

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) All U-NII transmitters, except for standard power access points 
and fixed client devices, operating in the 5.925-7.125 GHz band must 
employ a contention-based protocol.
* * * * *

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-02390 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
exhibit 99.1



                    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 CareDecision
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We,
Robert Cox, President/CEO, and Michael Vogel, Treasurer/CFO,
of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge,
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.





/s/ Robert Cox
-----------------
Robert Cox
President/CEO
November 8, 2002





/s/ Michael Vogel
-----------------
Michael Vogel
Treasurer/CFO
November 8, 2002


/1/
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ivan Ray BEGAY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10645.

D.C. No. CR-00-01222-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted on July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 29, 2002.

*64Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Ivan Ray Begay appeals his 382-month sentence following his guilty plea to eight counts of aggravated sexual abuse on two women on a Navajo Indian reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We affirm.

Begay contends that the district court improperly enhanced his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 by two levels for restraining his victims during the commission of the offense. According to Begay, the two-level enhancement amounted to impermissible double counting because it was assessed for conduct already accounted for in the district court’s four-level enhancement for the use of force during a sexual assault under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(1). We review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. *United States v. Bowman,*215 F.3d 951, 968 n. 11 (9th Cir.2000).

Because restraint of the victim is not an element of the offense of aggravated sexual abuse, *see*18 U.S.C. § 2241, was not incorporated in the aggravated sexual abuse offense guideline applied here, *see*U.S.S.G. §§ 2A3.1, and was not otherwise taken into account in calculating Begay’s base offense level, the district court did not err by increasing Begay’s base offense level two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 comment. 2; *United States v. Parker,*136 F.3d 653, 654 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOSE YANEZ

- DOMINGUEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50483

D.C. No. 3:16

- cr

- 02317

- DMS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN

, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jose Yanez

- Dominguez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 18

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for

being a removed alien found in the United States , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326

.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50483

Yanez

- Dominguez contends that the district court improperly relied on his

criminal history as a reason to deny the parties’ joint request for a fast

- track

departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 and impose an above

- Guidelines senten ce. The

court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rosales

- Gonzales , 801 F.3d

1177, 11 80 (9th Cir. 2015). The court properly considered Yanez

- Dominguez’s

criminal and immigration history, including his two previous illegal reentry

offenses for which he received lengthy sentences. See id. at 1184. Moreover, the

18

- month sentence , two months above the high end of the guideline range , is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 54910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22037]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Sunshine Act Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Open Special Meeting of the Sub-Saharan Africa 
Advisory Committee (SAAC) of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (Export-Import Bank).

TIME AND PLACE: September 19, 2012 at 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting 
will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 326, 811 Vermont Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory Committee was established by 
Public Law 105-121, November 26, 1997, to advise the Board of Directors 
on the development and implementation of policies and programs designed 
to support the expansion of the Bank's financial commitments in Sub-
Saharan Africa under the loan, guarantee, and insurance programs of the 
Bank. Further, the committee shall make recommendations on how the Bank 
can facilitate greater support by U.S. commercial banks for trade with 
Sub-Saharan Africa.

AGENDA: Presentation on recent developments in Sub-Saharan Africa 
markets by Export-Import Bank staff; an update on the Bank's on-going 
business development initiatives in the region; and Committee 
discussion of current challenges and opportunities for U.S. exporters.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation, 
and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or 
comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) 
before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to September 19, 2012, Richard Thelen, 811 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3515 or TDD (202) 
565-3377.

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Richard 
Thelen, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3515.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-22037 Filed 9-4-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
----

----

|   | (1) | the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 4, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                  | PAPERWEIGHT DEVELOPMENT CORP. |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------|
|                  |                          |   |
| Dated: August 9, 2010 |                          | /s/ Thomas J. Ferree  |
|                  | Name:                         | Thomas J. Ferree |
|                  | Title:                        | Senior Vice President Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| EXHIBIT 99.1 |
|--------------|

| CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANACIAL REPORTS |
|----------------------------------------------|
| OF                                           |
| EXPRESSJET HOLDINGS, INC.                    |

I, James B. Ream, President and Chief Executive Officer of ExpressJet Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (2) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States code), that:
|    | (1)   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the “Periodic Report”) which thisstatement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and |
|--------------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              | (2)   | information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of ExpressJet Holdings, Inc.                                                                                                                   |

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not being filed as part of the PeriodicReport.
|  Date:  April 23,2003                 |                       | **/s/ James B.Ream                          ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                   | James B. Ream President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                            |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. and will beretained by ExpressJet Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1650** 

BISMARK KWAKU TORKORNOO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NINA HELWIG, Esq.; JOHN MONAHAN, Esq.; MARY TORKORNOO; JACQUELINE NGOLE, Esq. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv - 02652

- TDC )

Submitted : October 31, 2016 Decided: December 8, 2016

Before DIAZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo, Appellant Pro Se. Nina Helwig , John Monahan , Jacqueline Ngole, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in thi s circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bismark Kwaku Torkornoo appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action on the basis of the Rooker

- Feldman ∗ doctrine after fin ding that Torkornoo’s claims arose out of or were inextricably intertwined with prior stat e court proceedings. Subsequent to the district court’s order, we clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine in Thana v. Bd. Of License Commissioners for Charles City , 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016), explaining that the doctrine does not appl y “ if a plaintiff in federal court does not seek review of the state cou rt judgment itself but instead presents an independent claim ” that is related to a matter decided by a state court. Id. at 320 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Instea d, “ any tensions between the two proceedings should be managed through the doctrines of preclusion, comity, and abstention. ” Id. Because the district court’s Rooker

- Feldman analysis may be inconsistent with our recent clarification, we vacate its order and remand for reconsideration in light of Thana . We deny as moot Appellee Monahan’s motion to dismiss. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

∗ Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983).3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000451 18-DEC-2019 09:19 AM
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1843

To provide for the allocation of funds from the Mass Transit Account of

the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 5, 1996

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. LOTT, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. JEFFORDS, and Mr. COCHRAN) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To provide for the allocation of funds from the Mass Transit

Account of the Highway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ALLOCATION OF MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT

4 FUNDS.

5 (a) MINIMUM ALLOCATION.—The Secretary of

6 Transportation shall take such actions as may be nec7 essary to ensure that, in each fiscal year, each State’s per8 centage of the total apportionments to all States from the

9 Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund estab10 lished by section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of
2

•S 1843 IS

1 1986 is not less than 80 percent of the State’s estimated

2 tax payment attributable to highway users in the State

3 paid into that Account in the most recent year for which

4 data are available.

5 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) does not apply

6 to any State whose contribution to the Mass Transit Ac7 count of the Highway Trust Fund established by section

8 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the applica9 ble fiscal year is greater than or equal to $45,000,000.

Æ
MIGUEL DELFIN-MANTA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-2300

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 21, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark Hulsey III, Judge.

Clyde M. Taylor, III of Taylor & Taylor, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen Lynn Bonjour, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 31

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Joel Gardner, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Megola, Inc.;

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. I am 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 is made known to us
by others within the Corporation, 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 on such evaluation; and

      c) 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, 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 control over financial reporting 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 control over
financial reporting.


Date: December 15, 2004

                                                /s/ JOEL GARDNER
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Joel Gardner
                                                CEO and CFO