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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1048

LYNN M. VINCENT,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; LUCENT RETIREMENT INCOME 

PLAN,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00240-GCM)

Submitted: June 17, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011

Before DAVIS and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Houston Pope, EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C., New York, New 

York, for Appellants. Edward G. Connette, Norris Arden Adams, 

II, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Defendants Lucent Technologies, Inc. and Lucent 

Retirement Income Plan (collectively Lucent) appeal from the 

district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff 

Lynn Vincent (Vincent) on her ERISA*

On appeal, Lucent argues the district court erred by 

granting Vincent injunctive relief based upon certain language 

in the Plan, 

claim granting her 

injunctive relief: (1) ordering Lucent to allow her to reenter 

the Lucent Service Based Pension Program (SBPP) upon her 

repaying her lump sum distribution and (2) to give her earned 

service credit, in the SBPP, from September 1, 2001 forward. 

The SBPP is part of the Lucent Retirement Income Plan (the 

Plan).

i.e., Section 6.6, to which Vincent, during the 

administrative review process, did not direct the attention of 

either the Plan Administrator or the Lucent Employee Benefits 

Committee, which committee performs the final review for claims 

arising under the Plan. Next, Lucent argues that, assuming 

arguendo

 * See Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,

§ 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (empowering plan 

participant or beneficiary “to recover benefits due to him under 

the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of 

the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the 

terms of the plan . . .”).

the district court properly considered the 
3

applicability of Section 6.6, the district court abused its 

discretion by deciding an issue of plan interpretation de novo, 

without remanding the issue to the Plan Administrator. Finally, 

Lucent argues that, assuming arguendo

Having considered the parties’ briefs, the record, and 

the applicable law, we find no reversible error. We affirm on 

the reasoning of the district court as set forth in its 

carefully crafted order. 

the district court 

properly considered the applicability of Section 6.6 and 

properly engaged in its construction without deferring to the 

Plan Administrator, the district court erred in its construction 

of Section 6.6.

See Vincent v. Lucent Techs., Inc.

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.

, 

733 F. Supp. 2d 729 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 2010).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

         I, David J. Kolibachuk, being an officer of U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, the Trustee in respect of the Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, News America Debenture-Backed Series 2002-9 Trust (the "Trust"),
certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Trust and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
          servicing reports of the Trust filed by Lehman ABS Corporation in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
          provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
          under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
          in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
          based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
          Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 27, 2006



      /s/ DAVID J. KOLIBACHUK
-----------------------------------
David J. Kolibachuk, Vice President
Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should *

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth

Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51208

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS FERNANDO ORTIZ-RUIZ, also known as Ramiro Garcia-Salgado,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-2057-ALL

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Fernando Ortiz-Ruiz (Ortiz) appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction to illegal reentry of a previously deported alien. He

argues that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable because

it was greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He

contends that the advisory guidelines range of 46–57 months was too severe, the

illegal reentry guideline is not empirically based and double counted his criminal

record, and the presumption of reasonableness should not apply. Ortiz argues

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 3, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51208

2

that the Guidelines overstated the sentence necessary given (1) that his

conviction was several years old and (2) that the conviction’s seriousness was

exaggerated. Finally, he contends that the guidelines range also did not account

for his motive for reentering, which was to support his family. 

We reviewed the sentence imposed by the district court for reasonableness

in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v.

Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519–20 (5th Cir. 2005). Ortiz’s contention that his within

guidelines sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because

the relevant guideline is not supported by empirical evidence is without merit.

See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529–31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States

v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366–67 (5th Cir. 2009), petition for cert.

filed (June 24, 2009) (No. 08-11099). His assertions, that he should have

received a lower sentence based on his motive for returning to the United States

and that his prior conviction overstated the seriousness of his conduct, are

insufficient to overcome this presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,

523 F.3d 554, 565–66 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624 (2008). Because

Ortiz has not shown that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, his sentence

is AFFIRMED.
|                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History:                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                  
|Louisiana - North Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                  
|Louisiana - North Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,837  | 5,738  | 6,091  | 2,801 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,118  | 3,864  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4722 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4722

 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of polyvinyl alcohol and 
                         polyvinyl pyrrolidone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

   Mr. Holt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of polyvinyl alcohol and 
                         polyvinyl pyrrolidone.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF POLYVINYL ALCOHOL AND POLYVINYL PYRROLIDONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Aqueous mixtures    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          of polyvinyl                                                       31/2015.......
                          alcohol (CAS No.
                          98002-48-3) and
                          polyvinyl
                          pyrrolidone (CAS
                          No. 9003-39-8)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3905.99.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 99.10**

 

**LETTER OF CONSENT**

 

I, Cashel Meagher, P.Geo., refer to (i) the Annual Report (“Annual Report”) on Form 40-F of HudBay Minerals Inc. (the “Registrant”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28,****2013 and (ii) Registration Statement No. 333-170295 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-185723 on Form F-10 (the “Registration Statements”). I consent to (i) the appearance of my name in the Annual Report and (ii) the incorporation by reference of my name in the Registration Statements.

 

 
|   | Yours   very truly,      |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/   Cashel Meagher     |
|   | Cashel   Meagher, P.Geo. |

 

 

Dated: March 28, 2013

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4463 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4463

            To suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

 Mr. Luetkemeyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To suspend temporarily the duty on Thiacloprid.

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

SECTION 1. THIACLOPRID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        [3-[(6-chloro-3-    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          pridinyl)methyl]-                                                 12/31/2015
                          2-
                          thiazolidinyliden
                          e]cyanamide
                          (Thiacloprid)
                          (CAS No.111988-49-
                          9) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3808.91.25)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
14910-13-PJ

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

Federal Aviation Administration

14CFR Part 39

0'1'2..

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1 I I I I; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-J52-AO;

\{,,205

Amendment 39-**; AD HJ 2.0 lO -oL{ -\ 'L

RIN 2120-AA64

CUl'CU""'NClo.'

1IQ'""'G~YM"()1.

ANE-171

,,.,.,.,MSI>l<l

C ale:

"Olm"Q~"MIJ"'.

ANI',-171

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-1 00 and DHC~8~200 Series

Airplanes, and Model DHC~8~301, -311, and -315 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and DHC-8- 30 I, -311,

and -315 airplanes. This AD requires implementing a corrosion prevention and control

program (CPCP) either by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance

inspection program to include a CPCP. This AD results from the determination that, as

airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We are issuing this

AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion.

DATES: This AD is effective [inselt date 35 days after date of publication in the

FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc.,

"A'"

''''/.-1.(,4

M;;'"~\\i'

'""''''''~r--

"OUr",; ,y""oI.

A,J;'o - 10 I

'"~I

UAI"

400 Cote-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Quebec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; /.. I' 0

fax 514-855-740 I; e-mail thd.gseries@aero.hombardieLcom; Internet

http://www.bombardier.com.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on lhe Internet at http://www.regulations.gov;

or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

.ANtl-OO

'1?>":hvu ••.•;

"A~"

'- /I 10
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|New Mexico Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 952    | 491    | 490   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 734    | 1,012  | 1,013  | 753    | 517    | 1,487  | 491    | 650    | 613    | 2,914 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 491    | 1,043  | 898    | 1,377  | 956    | 551    | 1,115  | 1,868  | 1,882  | 864   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 684    | 1,244  | 2,239  | 1,941  | 1,771  | 2,269  | 1,203  | 2,431  | 2,657  | 1,708 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,833  | 2,229  | 3,276  | 2,791  | 1,979  | 3,599  | 5,465  | 1,046  | 1,951  | 3,147 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,659  | 2,345  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

CADDO SYSTEMS, INC., 511

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

vs.

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY

INCORPORATED, MICROCHIP

TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, 511

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CADDO

SYSTEMS, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00245-ADA

ORDER CANCELLING PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case having been set

for PRETRIAL CONFERENCE on Friday, May 13, 2022 at 09:00 AM is hereby

CANCELLED until further order of the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2022.

______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00245-ADA Document 200 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00245-ADA Document 200 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-631
In Re: ISIAH JAMES, JR., Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isiah James, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Isiah James, Jr., filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to relax 4th Cir. R. 22(d), governing motions forauthorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition, and to declare Rule 22(d) unconstitutional. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). James has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Accordingly, although we grant James leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and 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, that to my knowledge:



Date: March 24, 2011/s/ MICHAEL T. FLAVIN, PH.D. Michael T. Flavin, Ph.D. Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerAdvanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.


82

---



QuickLinks