alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HENRY LEE HUFF, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Henry Lee Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Henry Lee Huff seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Huff , CR-93-11-6, CA-97-469-6 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 30, 1997). We also decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CN Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael T. Storm
-----------------------
Michael T. Storm
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2004


This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CN Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by CN Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00127-CV

Christopher J. GALE,

Appellant

v.

Terri Lynn GALE, Stephani A. Walsh and Sara A. Herrmann,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-24190

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is reinstated, the joint 

motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(f). 

Costs of appeal are taxed against the appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

SIGNED June 12, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
EXHIBIT 10.31



                ORDER AMENDING SALE ORDER ENTERED MARCH 18, 2001

         The Court, having considered the foregoing, hereby ORDERS that the
following text is deemed substituted for the Court's interlineation of paragraph
"f" on page 3 of its March 8, 2001 order approving the sale of HomeAccess
MicroWeb, Inc. to Group Long Distance, Inc.

                  At closing, the Debtor is released of all obligations under
                  GLDI's $250,000 postpetition loan to HomeAccess including the
                  Debtor's pledge of its stock of HomeAccess and, at closing,
                  GLDI agrees to convert said loan into capital of HomeAccess.


     IT IS SO ORDERED.


  DATED:March 12, 2001                          /s/ Kathleen P. March
                                                ---------------------
                                                KATHLEEN P. MARCH
                                                UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

                                        4
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 24, 2012

p0917 

# Order

September 24, 2012

144929

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 14 4929

COA: 306136

Genesee CC: 08

- 022275

- FH

FREDERICK O’NEAL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                              AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
                                     TO THE
                SUPERIOR TELECOM INC. DEFERRED STOCK ACCOUNT PLAN


         WHEREAS, Superior TeleCom Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Superior
TeleCom Inc. Deferred Stock Account Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIV of the Plan, the Company may at any
time amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan effective as of January
1, 2001.

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article XIV of the Plan, the Plan is hereby
amended, effective as of January 1, 2001, as follows:

                 1. Article VI of the Plan is amended by adding the following
language at the end thereof:

                      "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Employer shall not
                      make a Matching Contribution with respect to any deferral
                      made pursuant to Section 5.1(a) in connection with (x) any
                      Bonus paid by the Employer to an Eligible Employee during
                      the period commencing on January 1, 2001 and ending on
                      December 31, 2001 or (y) any Eligible Stock Option granted
                      to the Eligible Employee during the period commencing on
                      January 1, 2001 and ending on December 31, 2001."
Order entered October 22 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01076
- CR JASON KYLE REMBERT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimi nal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 1321209
- H



### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the June 3, 2019 motion of Valencia Bush to withdraw as counsel on appeal for appellant Jason Kyle Rembert

. We
DIRE CT the Clerk of the Court to remove Valencia Bush as counsel of record for appellant.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Jason Kyle Rembert, TDC #02223602, Jorden Unit,1992 Helton Road; Pampa, Te xas, 79065.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
# C_2005093EN.01003501.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/35

---

Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Micronas GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-45/05)

(2005/C 93/66)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Micronas GmbH, Freiburg i.Br., Germany, represented by G. Herr, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 12 November 2004 (Decision R 366/2004-2-3D-Panorama) refusing to register the Community trade mark ‘3D-Panorama’ for Class 9 ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips’; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 12 November 2004 (Decision R 366/2004-2-3D-Panorama) refusing to register the Community trade mark ‘3D-Panorama’ for Class 9 ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips’;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Micronas GmbH. |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | The word mark ‘3D Panorama’ for Class 9 goods (consumer electronics, in particular TV sets, video recorders, radios, electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips; software) — Registration No 2871218. |
| Decision of the examiner contested before the Board of Appeal: | Refusal to register the mark for all of the goods applied for. |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal. |
| Pleas in law: | The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, because as far as ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips’ are concerned, the word combination 3D-Panorama neither consists exclusively of signs or indications nor is devoid of distinctive character. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Micronas GmbH.

Community trade mark sought:

The word mark ‘3D Panorama’ for Class 9 goods (consumer electronics, in particular TV sets, video recorders, radios, electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips; software) — Registration No 2871218.

Decision of the examiner contested before the Board of Appeal:

Refusal to register the mark for all of the goods applied for.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law:

The contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, because as far as ‘electronic circuits, integrated circuits, and in particular semiconductor chips’ are concerned, the word combination 3D-Panorama neither consists exclusively of signs or indications nor is devoid of distinctive character.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51523 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOE ALEMAN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1509-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Noe Aleman, Jr. appeals his convictions for conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens, and encouraging and inducing aliens to remain in the United States. Aleman was sentenced to a term ofimprisonment of six months on each count to be followed by threeyear terms of supervised release, all terms to run concurrently. Aleman asserts that the Government failed to prove criminal intent with respect to any of the three counts because he believed, based on legal advice, that the three Mexican females could remain in the United States legally beyond the date of theNo. 05-51523 -2- temporary parole. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt Aleman guilty of conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens, and encouraging and inducing aliens to remain in the United States. See Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), (iv); 18 U.S.C. § 371. The evidence that the aliens had single day parole (I-94 forms), that Aleman lied about turning in the forms when the aliens returned to Mexico, that Aleman and his wife lied about the aliens living in their home, that the aliens were in the United States because they were regularly attending school, that Aleman lied to border officials about the aliens’ location in Mexico, and that Aleman repeatedly attempted to have additional parole granted to allow the aliens to be in the United States legally was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Aleman knew that the aliens were in the United States illegally and to establish criminal intent with respect to all of the three counts of conviction. The evidence was sufficient to support Aleman’s convictions for conspiracy, harboring illegal aliens, and encouraging and inducing aliens to remain in the United States.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2005143EN.01001601.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 2 March 2005 in Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-120/05)

(2005/C 143/23)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) (Germany) of 2 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, on the following questions:

| | Can the documentary evidence provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 (1) of 30 May 1994 be disregarded and the exporter permitted to adduce evidence as to the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods by means of other types of evidence if the exporter cannot (is no longer able to) adduce the documents relating to production by reason of force majeure? |
| --- | --- |

Can the documentary evidence provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 (1) of 30 May 1994 be disregarded and the exporter permitted to adduce evidence as to the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods by means of other types of evidence if the exporter cannot (is no longer able to) adduce the documents relating to production by reason of force majeure?

1

| | Does the incidence of force majeure also lead to a reduction in the standard of proof in the sense that the exporter merely has to produce prima facie evidence of or plausibly demonstrate the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods? |
| --- | --- |

Does the incidence of force majeure also lead to a reduction in the standard of proof in the sense that the exporter merely has to produce prima facie evidence of or plausibly demonstrate the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods?

---

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 5.

1

---
SCWC

- 1 8

- 0000 816

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I,

Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

KARL L. FORSTER

, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellan t.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 1 8

- 0000 816 ; CR. NO. 1PC161001251 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Valenciano , in place of Eddins , J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant Karl L. Forster’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on June 4 , 2021, is

hereby rejected

.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, July 12 , 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Randal G.B. Valenciano Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-18-0000816

12-JUL-2021

11:27 AM

Dkt. 7 ODAC
# C_2004239EN.01001301.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-50/00: Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - Markets for seamless steel pipes and tubes - Duration of the infringement - Fines)

(2004/C 239/26)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-50/00: Dalmine SpA, established in Dalmine (Italy), represented by M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Erhart and A. Whelan, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B — Seamless steel tubes) (OJ 2003 L 140, p. 1) or, alternatively, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case IV/E–1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it finds that the infringement imputed to the applicant by that provision existed before 1 January 1991; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 2003/382/EC of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case IV/E–1/35.860-B Seamless steel tubes) in so far as it finds that the infringement imputed to the applicant by that provision existed before 1 January 1991;

| 2. | Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 10,080,000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 4 of Decision 2003/382 at EUR 10,080,000;

| 3. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 4. | Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

1

---
HomeSite HelpElectronic Submittals Application

# Adjudicatory Submissions

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations require the use of electronic submittals in the agency's hearings, consistent with the requirements and specifications set forth in the Electronic filing rule. Exceptions to the rule allow paper filings or filings on disc storage media only in limited circumstances.

The Adjudicatory Submissions system is one of the NRC's three existing electronic submission systems. This system is used for filings in proceedings before the Commission and Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards.
> 
****Privacy Considerations:** Unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or a Presiding Officer, documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's Electronic Hearing Docket, which is available to the public. Therefore, hearing participants should not include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, in their filings unless such information is required by agency regulations [see, for example, paragraph (d)(1)(i) of 10 CFR 2.309] or other legal requirements.*
- Submit Adjudicatory Documents

(Note: The Adjudicatory Submissions system supports Internet Explorer v8.0 and above, current versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari 10 and above.)

## Related Instructional Resources

            - Getting Started

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 14, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Getting Started
          - Adjudicatory Submissions
          - Reference Materials for Electronic Submissions
          - Contact Us
          - Criminal History
          - General Submissions
          - Obtain a Digital Certificate

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Adjudicatory Submissions Notices

On December 30,2016, the NRC modified and upgraded its Adjudicatory Submissions application. The Adjudicatory Submissions User's Guide describes the changes in detail. The updated application is available through  the following link: "Submit Adjudicatory Documents". We encourage you to bookmark this link.

The operating hours of the Help Desk have changed. The new hours are 9 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday (except for Federal holidays.)

If you have questions or comments please contact our Help Desk at 866-672-7640.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 14, 2020
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 10, 2005 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|               |  |                            
|               |  | John P. Manning            
|               |  | Principal Executive 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 registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.