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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10878

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, also known as Sergio Armendaris Garcia, 

also known as Serjio Hernandez Garcia, also known as Sergio Elias GarciaHernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-422-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio GarciaHernandez 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). Garcia-Hernandez has filed a response. The record 

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia-

 

* 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

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10878 Document: 00513556325 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 15-10878

2

Hernandez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. 

Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Hernandez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the 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: 15-10878 Document: 00513556325 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JEAN EMMANUEL JABOUIN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1714

[July 18, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; George Odom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 18012319CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document 

for

EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANGEMENT DISTRICT

Rule 1110 Emissions from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines (Demonstration)

Prepared by: Arnold Lazarus

Reviewed by: Andy Steckel

April 2014
2

RULE IDENTIFICATION 

Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

SIP Approved Rule: Rule 1110 - Emissions From Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines (Demonstration)

Adopted - November 6, 1981

Submitted - March 1, 1982

EPA Approved - May 3, 1984 (49 FR 18822)

Subject of this TSD: Rule 1110 - Emissions From Stationary Internal Combustion 

Engines (Demonstration)

Rescinded - November 14, 1997

Submitted - May 18, 1998

BACKGROUND 

Rule 1110 - Emissions From Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

(Demonstration)

Rule 1110 was adopted November 6, 1981 to set up a demonstration program to collect 

emission data for Rule 1110.1 - Emissions for Stationary Internal Combustion Engines. 

The demonstration program has been completed and the provisions of the Rule are no 

longer applicable.

PURPOSE OF RULE RESCISSION - SCAQMD rescinded Rule 1110 because it was a 

demonstration program that had been completed and thus is no longer necessary. The 

proposed rescission of Rule 1110 does not have the potential to generate significant 

adverse impacts on the environment. 1

EPA EVALUATION - EPA staff have reviewed the District’s staff report associated with 

this rescission. EPA concurs with the District’s determination that if there are no 

demonstrations for Rule 1110.1 for which Rule 1110 was created, there can be no sources 

of pollutants. Rule 1110 did not directly impose any emission control requirements or 

limits, so rescission of this rule does not have any impact on emissions. As a result, we 

concur with the District that there is no further need for this rule at this time. 

EPA ACTION - EPA staff recommends that the rescission of Rule 1110 be approved.

REFERENCES

1. SCAQMD Board meeting, November 14, 1997 plus attachments 971136A.doc through 

and including 971136.doc. 

______________________________________________________________________

1. SCAQMD Board meeting, November 14, 1997, Agenda No. 36, states “This Board letter with its 

attachments will serve as a staff report.”

2. Ibid.
**Exhibit 23.4**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of WasteServices, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-117912) of our report dated March 20, 2003, except for theeffect of the restatement related to the beneficial conversion feature as described in Note 1 tothe financial statements included in the 2002 Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 2) of CapitalEnvironmental Resource Inc., which is as of November 4, 2003, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements, which appear in Waste Services Inc.’s Annual Report to Shareholders for theyear ended December 31, 2004 on Form 10-K.
**/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**
Chartered Accountants
Toronto, Canada
., 

Name 

Clean Power Plants/Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Stationary Sources and Standards for.Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sourc.es: EGUs 

Atlanta, GA 

July 29, 2014 

Elected Officials Sign-in Sheet 

Affiliation Contact Information
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 21

                               ALEXANDER'S, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



                        Alexander's of Brooklyn, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Fordham Road, Inc.
                        Alexander's Rego Park Center, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Rego Park, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Rego Park II, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Rego Park III, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Third Avenue, Inc.
                        Alexander's of Flushing, Inc.
                        Alexander's Department Stores of New Jersey, Inc.
                        Alexander's Department Stores of Lexington Avenue, Inc.
                        Alexander's Department Stores of Brooklyn, Inc.
                        U & F Realty Corp.
                        ADMO Realty Corp.
                        Ownreal Inc.
                        Sakraf Wine & Liquor Store, Inc.
                        Alexander's Personnel Providers, Inc.
                        Alexander's Kings Plaza Center, Inc.
                        Kings Plaza Corp. N.Y.
                        Alexander's Rego Shopping Center Inc.
                        Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership
EX-10.2
           CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

                     EVERLERT, INC.

Amount: $173,669.56                                   Date: 3/22/99

Everlert, Inc., a Nevada corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay
to the order of Wyvern Technologies, Inc. ("Holder") located at
1201 East Warner Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92705 or such
other place as may be designated in writing by holder or its
assigns , the principal sum of $173,669.56, with interest thereon
from this date, until fully paid, at the rate of ten percent
(10%) per annum (Maker and Holder may be independently referred
to hereinafter as "Party" or collectively referred hereinafter as
the "Parties").  Such principal and interest shall be due and
payable at the designated address of Holder one (1) year from the
date of this Promissory Note (the "Note").

Terms and Conditions

1. Note is due and payable twelve (12) months from the date
unless converted to Common Stock in Everlert, Inc.

2. Interest often percent (10%) per year, paid in arrears.

Conversion Provisions

1. Holder may convert at any time during the term of the Note for
Everlert, Inc. Common Stock at $1.00 per Share.

2. Conversion may be made by Holder for Note amount due plus
accrued interest, or any part thereof.

3. All shares converted by Holder will be registered as free
trading on a best efforts basis at the time of the next
registration after the initial public offering.

4. Cash payments, plus interest win not be made to Holder prior
to twelve (12) months, even if the early conversion is exercised
by Maker,

This Note has been executed and delivered in the State of Nevada
and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Nevada.

EVERLERT, INC.:                      WYVERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.:


By: /s/  James J. Weber              By: /s/  James J. Weber
James J. Weber, President            James J. Weber, President
Exhibit
32.1




















CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002













In
connection with the Annual Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.
Michael Wilson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to
my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350), that:








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. Michael WilsonJ.
      Michael WilsonChairman
      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 20,
      2008
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Fantatech, Inc. (the
"Company")  for  the  quarterly  period  ended  March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"),
the  undersigned,  in  the  capacity  and  on  the  date indicated below, 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  Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May 14, 2007                     By: /s/ GARY LUI
                                            --------------------------
                                            Gary Lui
                                            Chief Financial Officer


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by  the  Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
Argued and submitted December 30,1992,

affirmed June 9,

reconsideration denied August 11,

petition for review denied November 30,1993 (318 Or 98)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*THOMAS LEON GORDINEER, *Appellant.*

(10-89-10045, 10-90-08844; CA A69514 (Control), A69515) (Cases Consolidated)

854 P2d 473

Diane L. Alessi, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Youlee Y. You, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*92PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with five counts of robbery in the first degree, ORS 164.415, two counts of kidnapping in the second degree, ORS 163.225, one count of burglary in the first degree, ORS 164.225, one count of forgery in the first degree, ORS 165.013, and one count of robbery in the third degree, ORS 164.395. Pursuant to plea negotiations, he pled guilty to six counts of robbery in the first degree and the remaining counts were dismissed. He appeals from the sentences, arguing that there were not substantial and compelling reasons to support departure sentences and that, because he was sentenced on all convictions at one proceeding, the consecutive sentences imposed must be calculated under OAR 253-12-020.

Defendant’s sentence resulted from the plea agreement, and, under ORS 138.222(2)(d), we may not review his claims of error. *State v. Adams,*315 Or 359, 847 P2d 397 (1993); *State v. Kilborn,*120 Or App 462,852 P2d 935 (1993); *State v. Johnston,*120 Or App 165, 851 P2d 1156 (1993).

Affirmed.
#### R. J. WEST *v.*J. W. HALL, and others.

A bond given for the price of a slave sold in 1859, is valid, notwithstanding the public events which have happened since ; nor is it affected by the fact that the slave was warranted such *fen• life.*

*(Harrell*v. *Watson,*63 if. C. E. 454, cited and approved.)

Debt, trieábefore *Glouü, J.,*at Fall Term 1869, of Bowah Court.

The plaintiff declared upon a bond for money, in the ordinary form, dated January 31, 1859. The defendant relied upon the pleas of General issue, and Illegal consideration.

Evidence was offered by the- defendants, to show that the bond was given in payment of the price of a slave, and that the hill of sale received by the defendant, J. W. Hall, contained a warranty that the slave was such *for life.*

This was excluded by the Court, and the defendant excepted.

Yerdict for the plaintiff; Bule, &c.; Judgment, and Appeal by the defendants.

*IÍ. A. Caldwell,*for the appellants.

*JB. Craige, contra.*

Peabsoe, C. J.

There is no error.

It is settled that a contract for the purchase of a slave is not illegal, even when made after the Proclamation of the President, the slave not being under the control of the military forces of the United States: *Harrell*v. *Watson,*63 N. C. R., 454.

In our case the contract, was made in 1859, so the matter is too plain for discussion.

The evidence in regard to the warranty of title, was properly rejected. It did not tend to support any of the pleas. Indeed there was no breach of the warranty. The negro was a “ slave for life,” and the contract could not, in any way *44be affected by the event of the late war, and the abolition of the institution of slavery.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — In another ease at this term, between the same parties, in. ■which N. F. Hall was the principal defendant, the facts and questions were the same; and the same judgment was rendered.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# 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 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 504 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-121, K2025-119.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25257 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Kathleen Ligocki, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tower Automotive, Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2006 of Tower Automotive, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design and oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:February 27, 2007     /s/ Kathleen Ligocki    Kathleen Ligocki    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### MILLS HIGGINS *vs.*GEORGE W. GLASS.

A sheriff who lias taken a bail bond, but fails to assign it, in consequence of which he is held as special bail, and compelled to pay the recovery had against the defendant, may sue on the obligation thus taken, as a common law bond, and recover from the obligor (the intended bail) the amount recovered out of him.

AotioN of debt on a penal bond, tried before his Honor Judge Saundees, at the Spring Term, 1855, of McDowell Superior Court.

Upon the case stated in the opinion below, his Honor instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to recover ; to which defendant excepted. Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.

*Avery*and *Baxter,*for plaintiff.

*Gaither,*for defendant.

Nash,' O. J.

The plaintiff, as sheriff of McDowell county, had in his hands a writ against Wesley Barrett, at the instance of one Hiram Taylor, which he duly executed, and took from said Barrett a bail bond according to law, with defendant, Glass, as surety. This bond the plaintiff neglected to assign to Taylor. Judgment was obtained against Barrett by Taylor, and the latter, having fixed the plaintiff as special bail of Barrett, a judgment under a *sci. fa.*was obtained against him, which he duly paid. The action is brought against Glass, the surety on the bail bond of Barrett, to recover the amount of the judgment so paid by the plaintiff.

By the Act of 1836, ch. 10, sec. 1, Rev. Stat., every officer, who executes a writ, is required to take a bail'bond from the defendant and to return it with the writ; and by the 2nd section, he is required to assign it to the plaintiff; in the samé section it is enacted, every sheriff, or other officer, failing to make such assignment, shall be deemed, held and taken as special bail, in the same manner as if no bail had been returned. The plain*354tiff then, by his neglect in assigning the bail bond to Taylor, made himself special bail, and was bound to pay to Taylor the amount of the j udgment against Barrett. This failure, however, did not nullify the bond given by the defendant, as the surety of Barrett, but simply rendered it a common law bond. By it, the defendant bound himself to plaintiff, that if Barrett did not discharge such judgment as Taylor should recover against him, he, defendant, would pay it.

The action is brought on this bond as a common law'bond, and there is nothing shown by the defendant why he should not pay to the plaintiff the amount of the judgment recovered by Taylor, the condition of the bond being broken by defendant.

Pee CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.