alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5

TH 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.

 

1

 Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAY POSADA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-91-CR-0027-3)

December 9, 1999

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Jay Posada appeals the denial of his third motion for

reconsideration of his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). The sentence was imposed following his conviction for aiding and

abetting the distribution of over five kilograms of cocaine. Posada did not file a

timely notice of appeal of the denial of his motion.1 It would be futile to remand

this case to the district court for a determination whether there was excusable
 

2 United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1984).

 

3 United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46 (5th Cir. 1982).

 

4 United States v. McEwen, No. 99-30157 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 1999) (unpublished); see

also Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983).

2

neglect in Posada’s filing the late notice of appeal2because even if there is

excusable neglect, and the notice of appeal from the order denying Posada’s third

motion for reconsideration is deemed timely, we would be compelled to dismiss

this matter. The district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Posada’s motion

for reconsideration because the motion itself was untimely filed.3 The district court

appropriately should have denied Posada’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.

As the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Posada’s motion for

reconsideration in the first instance, this appeal from the district court’s denial of

that motionmust be dismissed asfrivolous.4 We caution Posada that any additional

frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of the full

panoply of sanctions. Posada should review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are patently frivolous.

Appeal DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                OF BESTWAY, INC.


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K
(the "Form 10-K") for the year ended July 31, 2002 of Bestway, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

I, David A. Kraemer, the Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that to
the best of my knowledge:

          (i)  the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section
               13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
               U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

          (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Issuer.

Dated:  October 24, 2002.

                                          /s/  DAVID A. KRAEMER
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: David A. Kraemer



Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 24 day of October, 2002.

  /s/ JEANNE A. ANDRESS
--------------------------------------
Name: Jeanne A. Andress
     ---------------------------------
Title: Notary Public

My commission expires:  04-13-2006
                      ----------------
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 103

   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
                        such care and services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
                        such care and services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractic Care Available to All 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 
        medical centers by not later than December 31, 2017, and at all 
        medical centers by not later than December 31, 2019.''.

SEC. 3. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE TO VETERANS.

    (a) Medical Services.--Paragraph (6) of section 1701 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(H) Chiropractic services.''.
    (b) Rehabilitative Services.--Paragraph (8) of such section is 
amended by inserting ``chiropractic,'' after ``counseling,''.
    (c) Preventive Health Services.--Paragraph (9) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
        subparagraphs (G) through (L), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
        subparagraph (F):
                    ``(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic 
                examinations and services;''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Allied Security Innovations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I
Anthony Shupin, President, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





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





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





By:
                      /s/
      Anthony ShupinAnthony
      ShupinPresident,
      Chief Executive OfficerNovember
      12,
2009








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 Allied Security Innovations Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I
Michael J. Pellegrino, Senior Vice President & CFO 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





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





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





By:
                    /s/
      Michael J. PellegrinoMichael
      J. PellegrinoSenior
      Vice President & CFONovember
      12, 2009
# Official Journal L 29/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.029.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 29 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5630 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.029.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 29

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5630 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2013 of 16 January 2013 on the Catalogue of feed materials (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 134408(37) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

LAURA K. FUNDUNBURKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 134408 

v COA: 274928 

Ingham CC: 06-000062-NI 

CAPITAL AREA TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY and MICHELLE BEARD, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Michigan County Road 

Commission Self-Insurance Pool for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered 

and it is GRANTED 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 10, 2008 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICAITON PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, Untied States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbans-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, the Executive Vice-President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's
knowledge:



Date:
June 14, 2004

| |  | Paul Theodore Owens Executive Vice President, Treasurer, and
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by
American Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No. 82-599.

#### Commissioner of Internal Revenue *v.*Engle et ux.

C. A. 7th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 1102.] Motion of the parties to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
EXHIBIT 21



       Subsidiary                                  State of Incorporation
       ----------                                  ----------------------

       AMREP Metro Services, Inc.                      New York
       AMREP Saratoga Construction, Inc.               New York
       AMREP Solutions, Inc.                           New York
       AMREP Southwest Inc.                            New Mexico
          Advance Financial Corp.                      New Mexico
          AMREP Construction Corporation               New Mexico
          AMREP Financial Corp.                        New Mexico
          AMREP Insurance Agency, Inc.                 New Mexico
          AMREP Metro Works, Inc.                      New York
             PERMA Corp.                               New York
               Strickland Construction Corp.           New Jersey
          AMREP Southeast, Inc.                        Florida
             AMREP Saratoga Square Homes, Inc.         Florida
          AMREPCO Inc.                                 Colorado
          Carity-Hoffman Associates, Inc.              New York
          Double R Realty, Inc.                        New Mexico
          Eldorado at Sante Fe, Inc.                   New Mexico
          M.F.G. Realty Corp.                          New York
          New Mexico Foreign Trade Zone Corp.          New Mexico
          Panorama Inn of Florida, Inc.                Florida
          Rancho Homes, Inc.                           New Mexico
          Rio Rancho Golf & Country Club, Inc.         New Mexico
          S.G.R. Realty Corp.                          New Jersey
          Shasta Real Estate Company                   California
          Sun Oaks Realty Corp.                        Florida
          Rio Venture Corp.                            New Mexico
          Rio Venture XV, Inc.                         New Mexico
       El Dorado Utilities, Inc.                       New Mexico
       Florida Ridge Utilities Corp.                   Florida
       Kable News Company, Inc.                        Illinois
          Kable Fulfillment Services of Ohio, Inc.     Delaware
          Kable News Company of Canada, Ltd.           Ontario, Canada
          Kable News Export, Ltd.                      Delaware
          Kable News International, Inc.               Delaware
Re: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project , Carlsbad, Ca.

Kerry Siekmann 

t

o

:

Shaheerah Kelly 09/23/2009 02:48 PM

From: Kerry Siekmann <siekmann1@att.net>

To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Thank you so much for your reply.

There is another issue I left off in my email.

Because the cumulative pollution impacts are not, so far, addressed, that means that this issue 

has not been addressed when it comes to the Health Risk Assessments from the cumulative 

impacts. I don't know if this is an EPA issue or not.

Kerry Siekmann

--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov 

<Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov <Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov>

Subject: Re: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad, Ca.

To: "Kerry Siekmann" <siekmann1@att.net>

Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 12:49 PM

Kerry, 

I just wanted to confirm that I received the concerns expressed in your e-mail.

************************************

Shaheerah Kelly

Air Division (AIR-3)

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579

email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Kerry Siekmann <siekmann1@att.net>

To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/22/2009 04:06 PM

Subject: Proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad, Ca.
Dear Ms. Kelly 

 

The Final Determination of Compliance has been published by the San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District. Due to the San Diego rules there is a glaring omission in the report. Nowhere 

do they measure cumulative air pollution impacts from: 

1) The proposed Carlsbad Energy Center Project 

2) Encina Power Station - Units 4 & 5 (which will continue to run) 

3) The I-5 Interstate (which may soon be widened to up to 12 lanes of traffic.) 

4) Railroad trains running through the immediate area. 

5) The SDG&E service yard. 

 

All of these polluters are adjacent to each other at the Encina site, and the neighborhood of 

Terramar is directly south of the Encina site. 

The first three listed sources of pollution are the major polluters but it is important to add all 

pollution emitters together when looking at cumulative emissions. 

 

The question is "Who will look at these cumulative effects?" 

The San Diego Air Pollution Control District has not! 

Please help us to address this important issue. 

 

Sincerely 

Kerry Siekmann 

5239 El Arbol Dr. 

Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 

siekmann1@att.net

760-438-5611
**Bestway, Inc.** **Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
  I, Beth A. Durrett, Chief Financial Officer of Bestway, Inc., certifythat:
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bestway,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of Bestway, Inc. as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures or caused such disclosure controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablelikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a) Significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summaries and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.     Date: October 25, 2004 By: /s/ Beth A. Durrett  Name: Beth A. Durrett
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E95]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 14, 2009

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
congratulate my colleagues on the passage of H.R. 2 yesterday 
afternoon.
  H.R. 2 is a critical piece of legislation that renews and improves 
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that ensures 
health care coverage for over 11 million American children--including 
the addition of 4 million, previously uninsured.
  This legislation also improves SCHIP benefits by ensuring coverage 
for dental and mental health services.
  H.R. 2 will reauthorize SCHIP through FY 2013 and will be fully paid 
for through an increase in the tobacco tax.
  Raising the tobacco tax discourages children from smoking. According 
to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the tobacco tax increase will 
prevent nearly 2 million children from starting to smoke.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will also pass H.R. 2 and I look forward 
to this important legislation becoming law under the new administration 
of President Obama.

                          ____________________
```
#### The State *v.*William Whithed.

1 [-From Edgecombe. J

Wliere ike Defendant in an indictment is acquitted, or wliere a *nolle prosequi*is entered, lie is bound to pay bis own costs, and none other.

The indictment in this case was founded on the presentment of a Grand Jury. The Defendant was tried and acquitted, and a question was submitted to the Court whether he was liable for costs, and if so, what costs ; and the same question was submitted in the case of

The State *■v.*J-James Dancy, J

Wliere a *nolle prosequi*was entered.

Henderson, Judge,

delivered £jae opinion of the Court:

The Defendant is bound to pay his own costs $ for he incurs them by calling on those whose services he thinks ho needs, and he must pay them for labor done at Ms request. And there is no person by whom he can be remunerated, the statute fixing the costs on the party cast not applying to the case, and it being a maxim in our law that no person recovers costs of the sovereignty. But we cannot perceive on what ground the Defendant should be subject to any other costs. There is no law, either statute or common, which makes him liable. It is true, *%ve suppose*that the Legislature, when they passed the act of 1800, *supposed*that the Defendant, although acquitted, was liable for all costs, except in cases where the prosecutor was ordered to pay them, and by that act exempted him from the payment of the State’s witnesses: but this is supposition upon supposition. It is admitted that judicial construction or legislative understanding ought not to be departed from *lightly;*but in this case the Court are at a loss to point out the act which was thus interpreted. *224They conjecture that it was the act of *1777,*directing the ^om't in certain cases to make the prosecutor pay costs. From that it was probably thought that in all other cases £jic j)epenQan^ was bound to pay them. But this is mere conjecture, and is certainly too slight a ground to adjudicate on in a country governed by known laws. So far from there being any law to warrant it, every law on the subject with which we are acquainted is in opposition to it. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Defendant is bound to pay none other than his own costs.