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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4448

LUKE STEWART, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-01-128)

Submitted: January 25, 2002

Decided: April 11, 2002

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Luke Stewart, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence of seventy

months imprisonment after a guilty plea to a superseding information

for distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1)

(West 1999), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to,

and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime,

in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000), and criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C.A. § 853 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Stewart’s

counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), addressing whether the magistrate judge fully complied

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Stewart’s guilty plea, and

whether the district court committed error in sentencing Stewart, but

stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

Although advised of his right to do so, Stewart has not filed a pro se

supplemental brief. 

We have reviewed the record and find that the magistrate judge

adequately complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in

accepting Stewart’s guilty plea. We further find that Stewart’s sentence was proper; the ten month sentence on the drug distribution

count was within the properly calculated guidelines range, and the

sixty month sentence on the firearm count was mandated by statute.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Stewart’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel

inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court

of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw

from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 

2 UNITED STATES v. STEWART
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

UNITED STATES v. STEWART 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                             144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    82,734
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    00
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,290)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[LETTERHEAD OF CONTIMORTGAGE CORPORATION]

March 12, 1999

Arthur Andersen, LLP
1345 Avenue of the America
New York, NY 10105

Dear Sirs:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, ContiMortgage Corporation has
complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers. As of December 31,1998 ContiMortgage Corporation had in effect fidelity
bond and errors and omissions policy in the amounts of $14,000,000 and
$6,000,000, respectively.


/s/ Margaret M. Curry                         /s/ William P. Higgins           
------------------------------                -------------------------------  
Margaret M.Curry                              William P. Higgins
Sr. Vice President - Servicing                Vice President and Controller


March 12, 1999                                March 12, 1999


                                       18
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT #21

                           WKI HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
                     (FORMALLY CCPC HOLDING COMPANY, INC.)

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000 ARE LISTED BELOW:

    1.  WKI Holding Company, Inc. (Delaware)

    2.  World Kitchen, Inc. (Delaware)

    3.  World Kitchen Canada, Inc. (Canada)

    4.  World Kitchen (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)

    5.  World Kitchen Australia Pte. Ltd. (Australia)

    6.  World Kitchen Malaysia Sdn Bdh (Malaysia)

    7.  Mundial Brasil Produtos de Consuma Ltda. (Brazil)

    8.  World Kitchen (Korea) Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea)

    9.  CCPC FSC, Inc.

    10. World Kitchen Asahi Malaysia SDN BHD (Malaysia)

    11. EKCO Group, Inc. (Delaware)

    12. EKCO Housewares, Inc. (Delaware)

    13. World Kitchen Mexico, S. de R. L. de CV fka VIA American (Mexico)

    14. EKCO Cleaning, Inc. (Massachusettes)

    15. WKI Latin America Holding, LLC (Delaware)

    16. EKCO Distribution of Illinois, Inc. (Delaware)

    17. EKCO Manufacturing of Ohio, Inc. (Delaware)

    18. World Kitchen (EHI), Inc.

    19. World Kitchen (UK) Limited

    20. WKM, S. dw. L. de. C. V. (Mexico)

    21. World Kitchen (GHC), Inc. (Delaware)

    22. CSC of Tennessee, Inc.

    23. WB of Ohio, Inc. (Ohio)

    24. Chicago Cutlery, Inc. (Florida)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the report of Prospect MedicalHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Jacob Y. Terner, M.D., ChiefExecutive 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:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| December 21, 2005 |   | /s/ JACOB Y. TERNER,  M.D.                          |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Jacob Y. Terner, M.D.                               |
|                   |   | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
* 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. 04-50254

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN RICO-CERVANTES, also known as

Jesus Peres-Servantes,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1832-DB

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Rico-Cervantes appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. RicoCervantes contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-50254

-2-

alleged in his indictment. Rico-Cervantes maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release which

may be imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Rico-Cervantes acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.47

            ATTACHING TO AND FORMING PART OF POLICY NO. 901/LK9905081

                      ISSUED BY: SWISS REINSURANCE COMPANY

               TO: MEDICAL INTER-INSURANCE EXCHANGE OF NEW JERSEY

ENDORSEMENT NO. 1                                   EFFECTIVE: 1ST JANUARY, 2000


It is hereby understood and agreed that with effect from 1st January, 2000 this
Contract is amended as follows:

i)  Article IV B. Limit Excess of Retention is amended to read:

    Limit Excess of Retention:

    i) In respect of Medical and Dental Practitioner Liability, Umbrella
       Liability, Hospital and other Healthcare Institution Professional
       Liability and Commercial Liability Business:

       Reinsurers shall be liable for 90% of $25,000,000 of Ultimate Net Loss as
       respects each original policy, or, where applicable, each and every
       Event, plus Pro rata Loss Adjustment Expenses.

    ii)In respect of Directors and Officers Liability, Fiduciary Liability,
       Managed Care Errors and Omissions Liability, Employment Practice
       Liability, and Miscellaneous Professional Indemnity (including but not
       limited to Lawyers Professional, Notary Public and Electronic Data
       Processors Business -- coverage subject to agreement by Reinsurers):

       Reinsurers shall be liable for 90% of $15,000,000 of Ultimate Net Loss as
       respects each original policy, or, where applicable, each and every
       Event, plus Pro rata Loss Adjustment Expenses.

ii) Article VIII: Premium is amended to read:

    The Company shall pay the Reinsurers a Minimum and Deposit Premium which is
    to be agreed upon receipt and review of (a) schedule of accounts ceded under
    the contract for the period: 12 months at 1st January, 1999 and (b) I.L.F.
    allocations for the reduced limit of $25,000,000 and shall be payable
    quarterly as follows:-

    31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st December.

    The Minimum Premium shall be adjusted upwards at 90% of the net ceded
premium within 45 days of 31st December.

iii) This Contract reinsures 80% part of the 90% of the Limit of Liability
     expressed hereunder.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT REMAIN UNALTERED.
#### CHRISTIAN v. STATE.

No. 19832.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1938.

Otto Mullinax, of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of cattle. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. Appellant has a number of bills of exceptions complaining of the action of the trial court in restricting him in his examination of prospective jurors on their voir dire. The bills fail to reveal reversible error. Appellant does not claim that by reason of the court’s ruling he could not intelligently exercise his right of challenge, or that he was forced to take an unacceptable juror.

The bills of exceptions relating to the argument of the district attorney cannot properly be appraised in the absence of a statement of facts.

Appellant contends in his brief that the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that if they found the defendant guilty as charged, then they could assess his punishment at confinement in the state penitentiary for any number of years not less than two nor more than four. It is true that the Penal Code, as amended in 1937 by the 45th Legislature, H.B. No 116, § 1, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1441, changed the punishment prescribed for theft of hogs, horses, mules and cattle and provided that the punishment should be not less than two nor more than ten years. However, in just.what manner the charge injured appellant’s rights is not revealed by the record. Having received the lowest punishment prescribed by the statute, we fail to see how he could have been injured.

It seems that appellant was perfectly satisfied with the charge as no objection was made thereto. Moreover, it was most beneficial to him in that it limited the jury m assessing his punishment to four years when, under the law as amended, they might have given him five or ten years.

*1095No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial, court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
##### 



/s/ Gary L. WhitlockGary L. WhitlockExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2007
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Alan Kiely, Appellant

No. 06-19-00012-CV v.

Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance 

Company, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

of Hays County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 18-0050-

C). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Alan Kiely, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 22, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-43-2024]

# SUMMARY:

                        The                         **Federal Register**                         notice published on August 14, 2024 regarding the application submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the San Francisco Port Commission, grantee of FTZ 3, on behalf of Phillips 66 Company (Phillips) is being corrected.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Juanita Chen at                         *juanita.chen@trade.gov*                         or 202-482-1378.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 14, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-18105, on page 66033, in the second column, the sentence “Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 28, 2024.” is corrected to read as “Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to October 30, 2024.”.                

Dated: August 8, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-23988 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 10.36_Amendment No. 9_Bonnett Employment Agreement






Exhibit 10.36






AMENDMENT NO. 9, dated as of January 10, 2010, 
to that Employment Agreement dated April 1, 2002 (the "Agreement") 
by and between David Bonnett (the "Executive") and 
AMERICAN MEDIA, INC. (the "Company").


Effective as of the date first written above, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


1.    Paragraph 3 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and the following substituted therefore:


Base Salary.  Effective April 1, 2010 during Executive's employment with the Company, the Company shall pay Executive a base salary (the "Base Salary") at the annual rate of $250,000.00 (Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents), payable in regular installments in accordance with the Company's usual payment practices.


2.    The following shall be added to Paragraph 4 of the Employment Agreement:


Digital Media EBITDA/Revenue Bonus.  Executive will be eligible to participate in a Digital Media EBITDA/Revenue incentive plan effective for FY11.  Such plan will be presented to Executive prior to the start of FY11.


All other terms and conditions of Your Employment Agreement and any subsequent amendments of that Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect (unless modified above).


IN WITNESS WEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment No. 9 as of the date first written above.


                                	
				
	AMERICAN MEDIA, INC.

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ David Pecker
	 
	 

	 
	David Pecker
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ David Bonett
	 
	 

	 
	David Bonnett
EXHIBIT 32 
Section 1350 Certifications STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Coastline Corporate Services, Inc. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Coastline Corporate Services, Inc. for the three months ended  January 31, 2010. The undersigned certify that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Coastline Corporate Services, Inc. as of January 31, 2010. This Certification is executed as of  March 15, 2010. By:     /s/ Toni A. Eldred.                                              
----------------------------------------- 
Toni A. Eldred 
President and Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer) By:     /s/ Toni A. Eldred.                                              
----------------------------------------- 
Toni A. Eldred
Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coastline Corporate Services, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 100 Employed full time (persons who usually work Number in thousands 16 to 17 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU02500086Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time, 16-

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 17, 2011 (03:24:18 PM)
Exhibit 99.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Denison Mines Corp. (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended
December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, and SEC Rule 13a-14(b), 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.

Date: March 19, 2014



|       |  |                         |  |  |  |        |  |                     
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ David D. Cates      |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Ron F. Hochstein
|Name:  |  | David D. Cates          |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Ron F. Hochstein    
|Title: |  | VP Finance, Tax and CFO |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and CEO