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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.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. 95-60687 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus MARVIS TABOR, A/K/A as Turk, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:94-CR-52-S - - - - - - - - - - July 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marvis Tabor appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He contends that the district court erred when it considered conduct described in Count One of his indictment, a count to which he did not plead guilty, as relevant conduct when sentencing him. Tabor has not shown that the district court's use of the amount of cocaine described in Count One to determine his base offenseNo. 95-60687 -2- level was clearly erroneous. United States v. Byrd , 898 F.2d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2** **Certification    of Chief Financial Officer**     I, William M. Baker, Chief Financial Officer of SBM Certificate    Company, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-K    of SBM Certificate Company;     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;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this 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 report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are    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 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, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this 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    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     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.      /s/  William    M. Baker
14 CFR §91.103: Preflight Action

This regulation requires each pilot in command to take 

certain actions before flight to insure the safety of flight. As 

FAA approved rotorcraft flight manuals will not be provided 

for the aircraft an exemption will be needed. An equivalent 

level of safety will be provided as set forth in the Operating

Manual. The PIC will take all actions including reviewing 

weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff 

distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of 

flight. 

14 CFR §91.109: Flight Instruction 

Section 91.103 provides that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for 

flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual 

controls. SUASs and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design 

do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight control is 

accomplished through the use of a control box that 

communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. 

The FAA has approved exemptions for flight training without 

fully functional dual controls for a number of aircraft and for 

flight instruction in experimental aircraft. See Exemptions 

Nos. 5778K & 9862A. The equivalent level of safety provided 

by the fact that aircraft will be piloted by an experienced sUAS pilot

who has previously trained in remote flight areas before 

attempting flight within filming distance of structures.

14 CFR §91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes 

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of 

civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (d) allows helicopters to be 

operated at less than the minimums prescribed, provided the 

person operating the helicopter complies with any route or 

altitudes prescribed for helicopters by the FAA. As this 

exemption is for a sUAS, MT Real Estate requests authority 

to operate at altitudes up to 400 ft. AGL; an exemption may 

be needed to allow such operations. As set forth herein, the 

UAS will never operate at higher than 400 ft. AGL. It will 

however be operated in a controlled area where buildings 

and people will not be exposed to operations without their
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Amendment No. 2 to Annual Report of AVI BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. David Boyle II, as Interim President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, 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 my knowledge,:

 

(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 results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ J. David Boyle II                                                                                |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. David Boyle II                                                                                    |
| Interim President and Chief Executive Officer, and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| AVI BioPharma, Inc.                                                                             |
|                                                                                                 |
| May 24, 2010                                                                                    |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

See also the certification pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is also attached to this Report.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to AVI BioPharma, Inc. andwill be retained by AVI BioPharma, Inc. and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-129-000]

      ( print page 77360)    
Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing its seventh annual cashout report for the September 1999 through August 2000 Period.

Tennessee states that the cashout report is the second filed by Tennessee under the new cashout reconciliation methodology established pursuant to the March 25, 1999 cashout settlement on the Tennessee system. The cashout report reflects a net cashout gain during the period of $209,435. Pursuant to the March 25, 1999 cashout settlement, there is a cumulative loss carry forward from prior cashout operations of $978,801.

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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 on or before December 12, 2000. 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 web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-31435  Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WARD v. STATE.

No. 15720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1933.

Williford & Williford, of Fairfield, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for possessing a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

We have examined the various complaints made by appellant, and are of opinion that none of them show error except the one hereinafter discussed.

Officers located a still, mash, etc., and stationed themselves to see if the parties operating same should appear. Appellant and others came to the place. Appellant was observed to take the tops off two barrels of mash, and, acting with another, to take the still off the furnace, and also to do something with a shovel near the furnace. One witness said appellant brought a sack of fruit jars to the place. Appellant took the stand and testified that he was on his way after a cow and calf that morning and fell in with Ritter who invited him to go by where the still was; that when he got there he simply stood around and looked at it; that he took two covers off two mash barrels at the request of the officers after they came up. He said he did not own' the still, or have any control over it, or any interest in the other equipment.

 The charge was excepted to for its failure to instruct the law of circumstantial evidence. We think the exception well taken. Appellant was indicted for the possession of the still, barrels, mash, material, and equipment for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. No one affirmed as a fact that appellant owned, controlled, or possessed the articles found by the officers. No statement of his to that effect was in testimony. The conclusion that they were in appellant’s possession was but an inference from his presence at the scene, and the things the officers testified they saw him do. In section 1873 of his Annotated P. C., Mr. Branch cites many authorities supporting the proposition that when the main fact to be proved is arrived at as an inference from various parts of the testimony, it is necessarily a case of circumstantial evidence. Hunt v. State, 7 Tex. App. 212: Harris v. State, 15 Tex. App. 638; Riley v. State, 20 Tex. App. 105, and Early v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. R. 344, 97 S. W. 82, are Cited by Mr. Branch. See, also, Hunter v. State, 120 Tex. Cr. R. 185, 47 S.W.(2d) 621.

For the error mentioned the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7114

JUAN J. PEREZ-BURGOS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Kenneth M. Carpenter , Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for

claimant-appellant.

L. Misha Preheim , Trial Attorney, Commercial Liti gation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E.

Davidson , Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the

brief were Michael J. Timinski , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Jamie L.

Mueller , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans

Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7114

JUAN J. PEREZ-BURGOS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States C ourt of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in CASE NO(S). 07-0173

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge , LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED May 4, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF POST PROPERTIES, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000903127    
<NAME> POST PROPERTIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,787,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   1,174,934,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             185,068,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,013,773,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    473,683,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                       220,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 400,286,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,013,773,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            90,680,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,540,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,070,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             28,604,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         24,240,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 75,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                24,165,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-137-000]

Take notice that on December 1, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 11, with an effective date of January 1, 2001.

CIG states that the filing was made pursuant to CIG's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, General Terms and Conditions, Article 21.5 (Account No. 858 Stranded Costs).

CIG states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's jurisdictional firm 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 web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www. ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-31420  Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 24.2








Power of Attorney


(RadiSys Form 10-K)





The undersigned constitutes and appoints SCOTT GROUT and BRIAN BRONSON, and each of them, as the undersigned's true and lawful attorneys and agents, with full power of substitution and resubstitution for the undersigned and in the undersigned's name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the RadiSys Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do any and all acts and things necessary or advisable to be done, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys and agents or either of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Power of Attorney, in the capacity indicated, as of the date set forth below.





Dated:  March 1, 2011








/s/ RICHARD J. FAUBERTSignatureRichard FaubertType or Print Name