alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40722 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HERBERT LEE SMITH, III, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. G-95-CR-11-1

- - - - - - - - - - March 28, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Herbert Lee Smith, III, (Smith) appeals his sentence for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred: by denying him a downward departure, by enhancing his offense level for possession of dangerous weapons, and by not exercising its discretion to waive the interest on the fine imposed. Although a violation of law occurs if the district court refuses to depart under the mistaken assumption that it does not have the authority to do so, UnitedNo. 96-40722 - 2 - States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 283 (1994), there is no indication in this case that the district court believed it lacked the authority to depart from the guidelines. Because it was not clearly improbable that the weapons were connected to Smith's offense, the district court did not commit clear error by applying the challenged enhancement. United States v. Castillo , 77 F.3d 1480, 1498 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 180, 236, 502 (1996). There is no plain error concerning the district court's failure to exercise its discretion to waive the fine or the court's mistaken belief that it lacked the authority to do so. United States v. Krout , 66 F.3d 1420, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 963 (1996); 18 U.S.C. § 3612 (f)(3)(A), (h) (West Supp. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
1 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1352

___________ Jimmie Don Kitterman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1996 Filed: August 20, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Kitterman pleaded guilty to various drug charges, and the District Court 1 sentenced him to 122 months imprisonment. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed. United States v. Kitterman , 16 F.3d 1229 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (table). Kitterman then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion, asserting, among other things, a double-jeopardy claim, various ineffective-assistance claims, and claims concerning the enhancement of his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (ten-year mandatory minimum for multiple drug-offense convictions). The District Court denied Kitterman's § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, and Kitterman appeals.
We believe the District Court properly denied Kitterman's section 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing, because after de novo review, we conclude the motion and the files and records of-2- the case conclusively show Kitterman was not entitled to relief. See Holloway v. United States , 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review).
Kitterman's double-jeopardy arguments are foreclosed for the reasons set forth in United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49 (U.S. 1996) (holding civil forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6) and (7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause), and United States v. One 1970 36.9' Columbia Sailing Boat , No. 95-3158, 1996 WL 403038, at *3-4 (8th Cir. July 19, 1996) (holding Urseryapplies to forfeitures under § 881(a)(4)). We agree with the District Court that Kitterman procedurally defaulted his mandatory-minimum-sentence claims. See Ramey v. United States , 8 F.3d 1313, 1314 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (§ 2255 relief not available to correct errors that could have been raised at sentencing or on direct appeal, absent showing of cause and prejudice or actual innocence). We need not consider Kitterman's argument that his attorney was ineffective for not raising the mandatory-minimum-sentence claims on direct appeal, because Kitterman did not make this argument below. See Thomas v. United States , 27 F.3d 321, 325 (8th Cir. 1994). Finally, we conclude Kitterman abandoned the other claims he raised below, because he did not address them in his opening appellate brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).
Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit  32


                              Certification
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
   and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of The  L.S. Starrett Company,  a Massachusetts
corporation  (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2003
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  November 7, 2003                 	/s/ Douglas A. Starrett
                                       	------------------------------
	                                      Douglas A. Starrett
				               Chief Executive Officer


Date:  November 7, 2003                 	/s/ Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
                                       	------------------------------
	                                     	Roger U. Wellington, Jr.
				               Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The L.S. Starrett Company and will be retained by The L.S.
Starrett Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 2

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 of 6
GUERRA 000973

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 of 6
GUERRA 000974

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 6
GUERRA 000975

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 6
GUERRA 000976

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 6
GUERRA 000977

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 97-2 Filed 08/05/22 Page 6 of 6
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 11

                       Computation of Net Loss Per Share


                                                 Year Ended December 31,
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                             1998                     1999
                                       -----------------------------------------


Net Loss                                 $(1,384,780)             $(250,543)

Basic and Diluted weighted average
  common shares outstanding                3,035,856              4,021,216
                                       -----------------------------------------

Basic and Diluted Loss Per Share              $(0.46)                $(0.06)
                                       =========================================



This table has been prepared using Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 128 "Earnings Per Share" for all applicable periods presented.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATIONS



CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND VP FINANCE (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER) 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 Bear Island Paper Company, L.L.C. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Peter M. Brant, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward D. Sherrick, as Vice President of Finance (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1) The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter M. Brant                                     
|Peter M. Brant                                         
|Chief Executive Officer                                
|March 30, 2004                                         
|                                                       
|/s/ Edward D. Sherrick                                 
|Edward D. Sherrick                                     
|Vice President of Finance (Principal Financial Officer)
|March 30, 2004                                         



This certification accompanies the
annual report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
# AGENCY:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

 Revised schedule for the subject reviews.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

 February 1, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                         John Fry (202-708-4157), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-                        Start Printed Page 5890                        impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 Effective October 15, 1999, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject reviews (64 FR 57483, October 25, 1999). On January 19, 2000, counsel for Wolff Walsrode AG, a German producer, and Bayer Corporation, a German importer, requested a two-month extension of the schedule on the assumption that a decision may be made within that time frame by Hercules, the sole U.S. producer, as to whether it will close or sell its production facility. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675 (c)(5)(B), and is hereby revising its schedule.

The Commission's new schedule for the reviews is as follows: the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on May 18, 2000; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is May 30, 2000; requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than May 31, 2000; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on June 5, 2000; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on June 8, 2000; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is June 19, 2000; the Commission will make its final release of information on July 13, 2000; and final party comments are due on July 17, 2000.

For further information concerning these reviews, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207).

Authority: These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

Issued: February 1, 2000.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2697 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-U
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Helmer Rendon, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered May 11, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was indicted on drug charges resulting from an investigation by the Nassau County Narcotics Bureau. At trial, the People relied heavily upon the testimony of a *361confidential informant, whose cooperation with the police was to be considered in plea negotiations pertaining to a charge of driving while intoxicated.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the conduct of law enforcement authorities, acting primarily through the informant, was so egregious as to deprive him of due process *(see, People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511; *People v Rathbun,*141 AD2d 570). We disagree. The record establishes that the authorities did not entrap the defendant and acted out of legitimate law enforcement concerns *(see, People v Isaacson, supra).*Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Tandycrafts,
Inc's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,647
<INVENTORY>                                     37,594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,368
<PP&E>                                          58,793
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,716
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,528
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,680
<SALES>                                         92,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,564
<CGS>                                           63,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (42)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (69)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (69)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.4





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)


UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED





I, Yifat Zommer, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and





2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.





Date: December 21, 2012
/s/ Yifat ZommerYifat ZommerChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2790 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2790

 To authorize private nonprofit organizations to administer permanent 
   housing rental assistance provided through the Continuum of Care 
Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2013

Mr. Peters of California (for himself and Mr. McNerney) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize private nonprofit organizations to administer permanent 
   housing rental assistance provided through the Continuum of Care 
Program under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Housing Assistance Efficiency Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

    Subsection (g) of section 423 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11383(g)) is amended by inserting ``private 
nonprofit organization,'' after ``unit of general local government,''.

SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 414(d) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11373(d)(1)) is amended by striking ``twice'' 
and inserting ``once''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                   34,294
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           168,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                             10,009
<INVENTORY>                                             104,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        448,812
<PP&E>                                                3,347,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,535,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        2,572,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   732,659
<BONDS>                                               2,217,203
<COMMON>                                                     41
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                             (604,633)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          2,572,349
<SALES>                                               3,858,604
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3,904,825
<CGS>                                                 2,739,568
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,739,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,064,928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       49,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          50,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                             20,050
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      30,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           4,290
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             34,898
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.09 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.08 <F2>
<FN>
<F1> BASIC EPS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEM) IS .08
<F2> DILUTED EPS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS (BEFORE EXTRAORDINARY ITEM) IS .07
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### REED v. STATE.

No. 22046.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1942.

D. H. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of assault to murder and assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the case. Brief has been filed on behalf of appellant setting up two assignments of error. As often repeated, this court is but little concerned with assignments of error. We look to the bill of exception to present appellant’s complaint.

We are asked to reverse this case because the court refused to grant appellant’s first motion for a continuance. Only a bill of exception will bring this question before us for review. Myers v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 130, 3 S.W.2d 438; Fromm v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 265, 39 S.W.2d 67, and Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 161 S.W.2d 83, recently decided by this court but not yet reported [in State reports].

It is true that appellant filed a motion for new trial and made complaint because of the court’s failure to grant his motion for continuance. No bill of exception was taken to the court’s conclusion in overruling the same, nor would it avail to bring the question before us if there had been.

Finding no error presented for our consideration, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The order overruling the motion for new trial embraced appellant’s exception to the court’s action upon the motion. It was not necessary to preserve the point by a bill of exception.

However, the complaint because of the denial of a continuance must be reserved by a bill of exception. Some twenty or more cases are cited under Note 7, § 151, p. 211, Vol. 4, Tex.Jur. We see nothing taking this case from under the general rule on the subject.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.