alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Military Drawdown for Tunisia

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Defense

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Title III (Foreign Military Financing) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000, as enacted in Public Law 106-113 (Title III), I hereby direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, and military education and training of the aggregate value of $4 million for Tunisia, consistent with the authority provided under Title III, for the purposes of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

                    The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to report this determination to the Congress and to publish it in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 00-25961

Billing code 4710-10-M
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended on March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Sarah H. Moore, the principal financial officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 7, 2004



/s/    SARAH H. MOORESarah H. Moore Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40455 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL CONRADINO-NAVARRETE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1348-1

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Gabriel Conradino-Navarrete (Conradino) appeals the sentence following his conviction by a jury for making false representations of his citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005). Because Conradino did not raise this issue in the district court, this court reviews the argument for plain error.No. 04-40455 -2- See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Malveaux , __F.3d__, No. 03-41618, 2005 WL 1320362 at *1 n.9 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2005). Thus, Conradino must show: (1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain; (3) that affected his substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). Conradino argues that the sentencing error was structural and that he thus need not show prejudice. He alternatively maintains that prejudice should be presumed because the violation of his rights may have played a role in the district court’s sentencing decision. Conradino makes no showing, as required by Valenzuela-Quevedo , that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme.
See Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d at 733-34. Similarly, there is no indication from the court’s remarks at sentencing that the court would have reached a different conclusion. Thus, Conradino has not met his burden to show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See id. Accordingly, Conradino’s sentence is
AFFIRMED.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

24 April 2006

(2006/C 97/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41486

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS MARCIAL SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-407-1

___________________________________________

September 27, 2001

Before POLITZ, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Marcial Sanchez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of the

United States after removal, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez-Gonzalez’s

offense level was enhanced 16 levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based

on a Texas felony driving-while-intoxicated (“DWI”) conviction, which was
2

characterized as an aggravated felony. The district court sentenced SanchezGonzalez to 77 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.

Sanchez-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred by applying the 16-level

enchancement because his prior felony DWI conviction is not an aggravated felony. 

Because Sanchez-Gonzalez raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we review

for plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en

banc); see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-36 (1993).

A Texas felony DWI conviction is not a “crime of violence” as defined in 18

U.S.C. § 16 and thus is not an aggravated felony for the purpose of a §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A) 16-level enhancement. United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d

921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus the district court’s error in applying the 16-level

enhancement was plain and affected Sanchez-Gonzalez’s substantial rights. 

Because Sanchez-Gonzalez’s sentencing range would be reduced substantially

without the 16-level enchancement, we exercise our discretion to correct this error. 

See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 445 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Accordingly, Sanchez-Gonzalez’s sentence is VACATED, and this matter is

REMANDED for resentencing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5484 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5484

 To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode (LED) drivers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on light emitting diode (LED) drivers.

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

SECTION 1. LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (LED) DRIVERS.

    (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        Light emitting      Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          diode (LED)                                                       12/31/2015
                          drivers which
                          contain diodes,
                          transistors and
                          other
                          semiconductor
                          material designed
                          to work with an
                          LED array to
                          deliver constant
                          current and to
                          prevent
                          transients of
                          current from
                          damaging the LED,
                          specifically
                          designed to
                          withstand extreme
                          temperatures of
                          55 C at a case
                          temperature of 80
                          C and a full
                          operating ambient
                          temperature range
                          of -40 C to 55 C,
                          offering at least
                          50,000 hours
                          operating life in
                          whole temperature
                          range (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8504.40.95)......

    (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>
```
### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 0017 -CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ D A N I E L T I MMS , A pp ellan t,
v. J & C A DVENTURES, INC. D/B/A A LL SEASON S PO OLS , SPAS, A ND PA TIOS , A pp ellee

.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On ap pe al f rom th e 1 72n d Dist rict C ou rt o f J eff erso n Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Dan iel Timms, per fected a n a p p e al from a j udg ment ent ered by the 172nd D is tr ict Cour

t of Je fferson Cou nty , Tex as, i n c ause number E- 175,341

. Appel lan t has filed an unoppos ed motion to dis mis s the appeal on grounds that he no long er des ires to pu rs ue hi s r ig ht t o appea l.2

Th e C o u rt , hav ing co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e and appel lan t’ s u noppos ed moti on to di smi ss the appeal , i s o f the opini on that the moti on s houl d be g ra nted. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1(a). Appel lan t’ s mot ion to dis mis s i s g ra nted, and the a ppeal i s h ereby DI SM ISSE D. Cos ts w il l be ta x ed ag ain st appel lan t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( d) ( "Abse nt ag re ement of the par

ti es, the cour

t w il l tax cos ts ag ain st the a ppel lan t.")

. Hav ing di smi ss ed the a ppeal at appell ant’ s req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

PERC UR IAM
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 26t h day

of June, 2008.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Sarah H. Moore, the principal
financial officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 8, 2007



/s/    SARAH H.
MOORESarah H. MooreChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The
Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Ron O'Neal Finklea, Respondent, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2019-001104 

Appeal from Lexington County 

William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2024-MO-019 

Heard December 13, 2023 – Filed July 31, 2024 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior 

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane 

Brown, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, 

and Assistant Attorney General William Joseph Maye, 

all of Columbia, for Petitioner. 

John H. Blume, III, of Law Office of John Blume; 

Rosalind Sarah Duval Major, Allison Ann Franz, and 

Emily C. Paavola, all of Justice 360, of Columbia, for 

Respondent. 
 

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court's decision 

granting Ron O'Neal Finklea's application for post-conviction relief. We now 

dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.
#### SHAMBURGER, Judge, et al. v. TIERNEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 23, 1951.

Lawrence G. Duncan, Louisville, for appellant.

Edwin H. Stierle, Louisville, for appel-lee.

■ MILLIKEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court involving the construction of KRS 64.530, which is part of the new salary law enacted by the General Assembly at its 1950 session. The question to be determined is whether the Fiscal Court of Jefferson County is authorized, under the provisions of KRS 64.-530, Chapter 123, Section 9, of the Acts of 1950, to employ a number of assistant county attorneys in excess of the number authorized by KRS 69.280. An assistant attorney general has ruled that the new salary act repealed, by implication, KRS 69.280, but the Circuit Court decided otherwise in the belief that by KRS 64.530, the pertinent part of the new salary act, that all the General Assembly had intended to do was to vest authority in the Fiscal Court to determine the number of deputies or assistants which any county officer could have where no other provision of the statutes had limited the number of assistants.

KRS 69.280 provides as follows: “In counties having a population of 250,000 or more the county attorney shall appoint a first and a second assistant county attorney. The assistant attorneys shall be appointed for terms of four years subject to removal at any time by the county attorney.”

The pertinent provisions of KRS 64.530 read as follows: “In the case of officers compensated from fees, or partly from fees and partly 'by salary, the fiscal court shall fix the maximum compensation that the officer may receive, from both sources, and also shall have authority to fix the number of deputies and assistants, and the compensation thereof, and the maximum *280amount that the officer may expend each year for expenses of his office.”

It is our conclusion that the • two acts ax-e not irreconcilable, and that it is possible to construe them in a way that will give both of' them effect. It is our opinion that KRS .69.280 is intended to assure the county attorney of Jefferson County at least two assistant county attorneys, and that the pertinent provision of KRS 64.530 is intended to authorize the Fiscal Court to grant him more than two assistants if it deems the work of his office requires it.

In view of the great growth of the population in Jefferson County and the considered judgment of the Fiscal Court by its action in authorizing the employment of a third assistant by the county attorney, we believe that tire construction of the statutes here involved is in the interest of the public welfare.

Judgment reversed.
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 2 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 3 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 4 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 5 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 6 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 7 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 8 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 9 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 62-1 Filed 12/03/20 Page 10 of 10
Case 5:20-cv-00269 Document 1-1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 1

 

 

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46810)pertaining to the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan for Associates who are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of ourreport dated June 7, 2000, with respect to the financial statements of the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation Associates Investment Plan forAssociates who are residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for the year ended December 31,1999.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

 

New York, New York

June 23, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60419-60420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-272-017]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

October 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Northern Natural Gas 
Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's 
FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets, proposed to become effective on October 1, 2000:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 66
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 66C

    Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement 
a specific negotiated rate transaction with WPS Energy Services, Inc. 
in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to 
Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the

[[Page 60420]]

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26058 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
WACO

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs. NO: WA:20-CV-00454-ADA

ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING

11/30/2020

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

at 03:30 PM

11/28/2020

Alan D Albright

SIGNED on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

§

§

§

§

§

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

The Court hereby sets and directs the parties, or counsel acting on their behalf, to appear by

phone for a telephone conference on November 30, 2020 at 03:30 PM . Please call (866) 434-5269

with access code 9678090 to be included in the hearing.

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/28/20 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

 v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), INC.; 

AND ZTE (TX), INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00493-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE 

BRIEF DEADLINES TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) 

files this unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a response to Motions to Dismiss7 filed 

by defendants ZTE Corporation; ZTE (USA), Inc.; and ZTE (TX), Inc. (“Defendants”), and would 

show as follows: 

1. On October 9, 2020, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, respectively, at Dkt. 

Nos. 22, 23, 24 (corrected by Dkt. 25). 

2. Pursuant to the Local Rules, WSOU’s deadline to file responses to the Motions is 

October 24, 2020. WSOU requests a three-week extension of its deadlines to November 6, 2020. 

3. This is the first extension WSOU has requested. The requested extension should 

cause no delay in the schedule.

4. WSOU has consulted with counsel for Defendants, and Defendants have indicated 

that they do not oppose this extension request. 

7 The motions were additionally styled with an alternative relief to transfer. For simplification, the 

motions will be styled herein as Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 6:20-cv-00493-ADA Document 26 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, WSOU respectfully requests that the deadline to file a respond to 

Defendant’s Motions, Dkt. Nos. 22, 23, 24 (corrected by Dkt. 25) be extended to November 6, 

2020. 

Dated: October 13, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

 James L. Etheridge

 Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR WSOU

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served this October 13, 2020, with a copy of this document via email.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00493-ADA Document 26 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2