alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10985

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GARY WILLIAM ABERNATHY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-304-1

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary William Abernathy appeals his 24-month revocation sentence. He 

argues that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court violated 

his due process rights when it imposed a revocation sentence based on 

“erroneous information,” specifically the probation officer’s representation that 

Abernathy had overserved his prior federal sentence by 24 months. Because 

Abernathy did not object to his revocation sentence before the district court, 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10985 Document: 00514703756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2018
No. 17-10985

2

his present challenge is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. 

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009).

The Government argues that Abernathy cannot show an effect on his 

substantial rights because the district court stated in its order in aid of appeal

that it “more likely than not” would have imposed the same 24-month sentence 

because “it was particularly concerned about the assault [Abernathy] 

committed against his wife,” which served as the basis for revoking his 

supervised release. Even though the court could not say with “absolute 

certainty” that it would have imposed the same sentence had the probation 

officer not provided incorrect information, the fact that the court “more likely 

than not” would have imposed the same 24-month sentence precludes 

Abernathy from showing a “reasonable probability” of a different outcome on 

remand. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 424 (5th Cir. 

2012) (en banc).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-10985 Document: 00514703756 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2018
United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Benefits Administration Letter

 

Number: 14-308 Date: October 2014

Subject: 2015 FEHB Withholdings and Contribution Rates 

The official Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program withholdings and contribution 

rates for 2015 are available in a PDF file format on the OPM web site at

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/index.asp. These are the only rates agency payroll 

providers should use to update their systems and are effective for pay periods beginning in 

calendar year 2015. 

The FEHB withholdings and contribution rates are also available in an ASCII and Excel file format. 

If you are a subscriber to the "FINPAY" listserv, you will receive these files. If you are not a 

FINPAY subscriber, please email us at finance@opm.gov using “Request for FEHB Rates” as the 

subject and the rate files will be emailed to you. 

If you have questions about this letter, feel free to contact us at FinancialBALs@opm.gov or call 

202-606-0606. 

 

 

 Kim Farington 

 Associate Chief Financial Officer 

 Financial Services
NO. 07-00-0587-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 4, 2001

	______________________________

	ADOLPH MAZUR, JR., APPELLANT

	V.

	ULTRA CLEAN, INC., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 724,520; HONORABLE GARY MICHAEL BLOCK, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Adolph Mazur, Jr. appeals from a money judgment against him for tortious interference with a business relationship.  The clerk’s record was filed on December 21, 2000, and the reporter’s record was filed on February 15, 2001.  That being so, appellant’s brief was due to be filed no later than March 19, 2001.  Appellant was notified by letter dated May 14, 2001, that the brief had not been filed and, unless a response was received by May 25, 2001, the appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.  

	On May 25, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief which was granted until July 9, 2001.  On August 14, 2001, appellant was again notified that his brief had not been filed and that, unless a response was received by August 24, 2001, reasonably explaining that failure together with a showing that appellee had not been significantly injured due to that failure, the appeal would once again be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).  We have received no such response.

	Accordingly, the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed. 

							Per Curiam

Do not publish.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Iris BioTechnologies, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Simon Chin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

 
| Date: November 9, 2009 | By:                                                                      |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |                                                                     |   |
|                        | /s/ Simon Chin                                                           |
|                        | Simon ChinPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 80277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22678]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 2, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 381 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-737, K2024-30.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-22678 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor401 South Tryon St.Charlotte, NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made
to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2012, by and among UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp.,
as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management, LLC, as Special Servicer,
Pentalpha Surveillance, LLC, as Operating Advisor and U.S. Bank, National Association as Trustee, Certificiate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C2 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.11
of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services and Timothy S. Ryan, Managing Director of
Customer Relationship Management, do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer
during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per
the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.



|/s/ Leslie
    Hayton |  | /s/ Timothy
    S. Ryan
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Leslie Hayton         |  | Timothy S. Ryan        
|Managing Director     |  | Managing Director      
|Wells Fargo Bank      |  | Wells Fargo Bank       





|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------
### WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE Le gislative Rule-Making Review Committee Senator Joseph Minard, Co- Chair Delegate Bonnie Brown, Co-Chair Debra A . Graham, Chief Counsel Felisha N

. Sutherland, Administrat ive Assistant Rita A. Pauley, Associate Counsel Brian Skinner, Associate Counsel Charles Roskovensky, Associate Counsel

Jay Lazell, Associate Counsel

January 8, 2012 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE LEGISLATI VE RULE- MAKI NG R E V IE W COMMITTEE TO : Natalie E. Tennant, Secretary of State , State Register TO : John A . Benedict, Director DEP

- A ir Qualit y 6 0 1 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 FROM : Legislati v e Rule

- Making Re v ie w Committee Proposed Rule: Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air, 45CSR14 The Legislative Rule-Making Re v iew C ommittee Recommends that the West Virginia Legislature: 1. Authorize the agency to promulgate th e Legislati v e rule: ( A ) as originally fi l ed ( B) a s modified by the agency 2. Authoriz e th e agenc y t o pr omulgate pa rt of t he Legis l ative rule; a statement of reasons for such recommendation is attached. 3 . Authorize the agency to promulgate the Legislative rule w ith certain amendments; amendments and a statement of reasons for such recommendation is attached . 4. Authorize the agency to promulgate the Legislati v e rule as modified w ith certain amendments; amendments and a statement of reasons for such recommendation is attached. 5. Recommends that the Legislature r ule be w ithdrawn; a statement of reasons for such recommendation is attach e d .



### Building 1, Room MB-49 1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25305 Phone: (304) 347-4840 Fax: (304) 347 -4901 email: felisha.sutherland@wvlegislature.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50467

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-1164-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Espinoza-Martinez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Espinoza-Martinez has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well 

as Espinoza-Martinez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50467 Document: 00513242529 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-50467

2

the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-50467 Document: 00513242529 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2012 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gary H. Schoenfeld, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael W. Kaplan, the Chief Financial 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:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 10, 2012 |  | /s/ GARY H. SCHOENFELD                         
|                      |  | Gary H. Schoenfeld                             
|                      |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                      |  | Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.            
|                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                      | 
|Dated: April 10, 2012 |  | /s/ MICHAEL W. KAPLAN                          
|                      |  | Michael W. Kaplan                              
|                      |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer 
|                      |  | Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.            
|                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)                  

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
U.S. Bank **Annual Statement of Compliance****UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C2***VIA: EMAIL*UBS Commercial Mortgage Securitization Corp. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Attention: Nicholas G. Galeone Email: nicholas.galeone@ubs.com17g5informationprovider@usbank.comRe: The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement") dated as of July 1, 2012 among UBS Commercial  Mortgage  Securitization  Corp.,  as  depositor,  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  National Association,  as  master  servicer,  CWCapital  Asset  Management  LLC,  as  special  servicer, Pentalpha  Surveillance  LLC,  as  operating  advisor,  and  U.S.  Bank  National  Association,  as trustee, certificate administrator, paying agent and custodian I, Kimberly O. Jacobs, a Senior Vice President of U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator hereby certify that:           (1) A review of the activities of the  Certificate Administrator during the preceding calendar year (the  "Reporting  Period") and  of the  performance  of  the  Certificate  Administrator  under the  Agreement have been made under my supervision; and           (2) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certificate Administrator has fulfilled its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such Reporting Period. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Date: March 15, 2016 U.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator By:  /s/ Kimberly O. Jacobs         Kimberly O. Jacobs         Senior Vice President
UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON,DC 20415-1000

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR NOV0 9 :005

MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF HUMAN CAPITALOFFICERS

FROM: Linda M. Springer ////~

Director j/ffU

Subject: Limited Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Option for 2006

Weare offering a new option under the FSAFEDS Program--a limited expense health

care flexible spending account (FSA) for Federal employees enrolled in high deductible

health plans with health savings ac,?ounts. Under the rules established by the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS), general health care FSAs are not available to health savings

account (HSA) participants. However, the IRS permitsindividuals to hold an HSA and a

limited health care flexible spending account for eligibledental and vision expenses.

Beginning with the 2006 Benefit Period, OPM will offer a Limited Expense Health Care

Flexible Spending Account (LEX HCFSA) for employeesin Federal Employees Health

Benefits (FEHB) Program high deductible health plans (HDHP) with a funded HSA. The

FSAFEDS third party administrator(SHPS, Inc.) will administerthe LEX HCFSA.

FEHB carriers will be responsible for notifying HSA enrolleesthat they are eligible to

enroll in a LEX HCFSA. Enrolleeswill have 30 days after being notified by their FEHB

plan to establish their LEX HCFSAby calling a special FSAFEDS phone number. This

means they will not enroll during the regular FSA open season held concurrently with the

FEHB open season in November/December. The effective date of their enrollment will

not be January I, but rather will be prospective, dependingon when they call to enroll.

But, they will still be able to fully fund their LEX HCFSAup to the $5,000 maximum.

We believe this approach meetsthe needs of eligibleHSA enrollees without creating a

potential for erroneous enrollments during the general FSAFEDS open season.

Weare pleased to be able to offer this limited FSA optionbecause it means HSA

enrollees will now be able to set aside pre-tax FSA dollarsfor dental and vision services

in 2006, the same as non-HSA enrollees. OPM's FSAFEDSweb site at

www.fsafeds.com will include information on the limited FSA in the near future.

cc: Human Resources Directors

CON 131-64-4

September 200'
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4058

SARAY MOM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-01-211)

Submitted: July 25, 2002

Decided: September 23, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Samuel P. Simpson, V, MONTGOMERY & SIMPSON, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Sara E. Flannery, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Saray Mom appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Mom

asserts the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress drugs

found on his person. Finding no error, we affirm. 

We review the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for

clear error, while reviewing legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v.

United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966

F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been

denied, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).

Mom contends the arresting officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify seizing him. We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the stop of the vehicle in which Mom was a passenger and

the seizure of Mom and find that reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity existed. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10

(1996); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22 (1968). 

Mom contends the district court erred in determining his consent

to search his person was voluntary. We review the district court’s factual findings on consent under a clearly erroneous standard. United

States v. Lattimore, 87 F.3d 647, 650 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The

Government must establish knowing and voluntary consent by a preponderance of the evidence, which is assessed under a totality of the

circumstances test. Id. With these standards in mind, we find no error

in the district court’s determination that Mom voluntarily consented

to a search of his person. 

Accordingly, we affirm Mom’s conviction. 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.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. MOM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CLEAN AIR GENERATION, LLC 

ANTHRACITE RIDGE, LLC,

Petitioners

v.

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, SCHUYLKILL 

COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 557 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Andrew R. Fritz, Bespondent, *v.*Jack Farber, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

April 1, 1958.

*486
      *Jack Father.,*in person, and *Louis Diamond*for jack Farber, appellant.

*John S. Thorp, Jr.,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Since there was no satisfactory excuse for the default and no showing of a meritorious defense, the motion to opon the default was properly denied. Irrespective of whether a default occurs before or after joinder of issue, the party seeking to be relieved therefrom must show not only that the default was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect hut also that be bas a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense. We are mindful of onr former decisions to the effect that an affidavit of merits is not required when the default occurs after joinder of issue. The reasons originally assigned for this holding no longer obtain.

The judgment and order should he affirmed, with $10 costs.

Pette, Hart and Di G-íovañna, jj., concur.

judgment and order affirmed, etc.