alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR I A D . B UC I O E S C OB E DO , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73582 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 175- 863 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ari a D . B u ci o E sco b ed o , a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f M ex i co , p et i t i o n s p ro se for r evi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e n ia l o f h e rap p lic a tio n f

o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

# FI LED

JU L 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 08- 73582

E s c obe do’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe B oar d’ s s um m arya f f i rm anc e of

the i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on vi ol a t e d he rdue pr oc e s s r i ght s i s f or e c l os e d by Fa lc o n Ca rr ic h e v . A s h c r o ft , 35 0 F . 3d 84 5, 84 9-52 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s det erm i nat i on that E sc ob edo d i d n otm ee tthe cont i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence re qu i re m ent , because her t e s t i m onye s t abl i s he d tha ts he l e f tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s f

orm or e than 90 da y s f

r om 1 9 9 8 to 1 9 9 9 , th e r e b yin te rrup tin g th e a c c ru a l o f c o n tin u o u s p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e in th e U n ite dS ta te s . See G ut i errez v . Mukasey , 521 F . 3d 1114, 1117 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( a c know l e dgi ng tha ts e rvi c e of the not i c e t o appe arha l t s the a c c rua l of c ont i nuous ph ys i ca l pres ence ). B ec ause E sc ob edo’ s i nabi l i ty t o est abl i sh ph ys i ca l pres ence w a s d is p o s itiv e , a n ye v id e n c e s up p o rtin g th e o th e re le m e n ts o f c an c e lla tio n w o u ld n o th av e ch an g edth e o u t co m e o f th e p ro ceed i n g s. W e de nyE s c obe do’ s r e que s tf orr e m and t o the B oar d f orthe O f f i c e of the C h ie f C o u n s e l to c o n s id e rp r o s e c u to r ia l d is c r e tio n a n da d m in is tr a tiv e c lo s u r e . W e expres s no o pi ni on as t o E sc ob edo’ s e nt i t l em entt o ei ther f orm of re l i ef

. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

MICROSSYSTEMS, INC.

 

**Certification of PrincipalFinancial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002)**

 

 

I, Gary C. Kaufman, Executive Vice Presidentof Finance and Administration and the Chief Financial Officer of MICROSSystems, Inc. (“Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge, basedupon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March31, 2003 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

(1)       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| /s/    | Gary C. Kaufman |   |
|--------|-----------------|--------|
| Name:  | Gary C. Kaufman |   |
| Date:  | May 15, 2003    |   |
|   |            |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         This certification is intended to accompany the Annual Report of U.S.
Plastic Lumber Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned, in my capacity as set forth
below, hereby certifies 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.






-------------------------------------------
Michael D. Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer              Date:
                                                                ---------------
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5229 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM EUGENE YOUNG, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CR-98-5)

Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 26, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sharon Burnham, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Eugene Young, Jr., appeals the district court's

order revoking his supervised release and imposing a ten-month

sentence on the ground that he violated the conditions of his

supervised release by failing to submit truthful and complete

monthly supervision reports, failing to notify the probation

officer ten days prior to changing his residence, and failing to

notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being

arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer. Finding no

error, we affirm.

This court reviews a district court's judgment revoking

supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v.

Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). In exercising this

discretion, the district court must consider the factors set forth

in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). See 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3583(e) (West 2000 & Supp.2005). The district court abuses its

discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or

when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or

factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.

1993). To revoke supervised release, the district court need only

find a violation of a condition of supervised release by a

preponderance of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3). We

have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in revoking Young’s supervised release.
- 3 -

Before United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we

reviewed a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release

for abuse of discretion. Davis, 53 F.3d at 642. This court has

not yet decided whether, after Booker, the proper standard is

reasonableness. However, Young’s revocation sentence was within

the advisory Chapter 7 revocation range of 7-13 months and can be

affirmed under either standard. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment

revoking Young’s supervised release. 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
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEFFREY COLLIE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 1052

[ November 4, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrew L. Siegel , Judge; L.T. Case No. 15

- 011616CF10A

.

Richard L. Rosenbaum of Law Offices of Richard Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mary E llen M. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         323,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,249
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               388,748
<PP&E>                                       1,668,292
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,147,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 909,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     909,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   909,791
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,589
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,134
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-3723-005]


Magill, David W.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on February 5, 2015, David W. Magill submitted for 
filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, 
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 
825(b) and Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c6c5d2c3cfeeece9eee5d3f5f0f0eff2f4c0e6e5f2e3aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a1c1f081915343633343f092f2a2a35282e1a3c3f2839743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 26, 2015.

    Dated: February 6, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02937 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2005019EN.01002302.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 July 2004

in Case T-29/03 Communidad Autonóma de Andalucía v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Report relating to the administrative enquiry into the marketing of olive oil in Andalusia (Spain) - Complaint - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 19/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-29/03, Communidad Autónoma de Andalucía, represented by C. Carretero Espinosa de los Monteros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Ladenburger and S. Pardo Quintillán, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Director General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 8 November 2002, by which the latter informed the applicant of the impossibility of investigating its complaint against OLAF Report IO/2000/7057 relating to administrative enquiries into the marketing of olive oil in Andalusia (Spain) – the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribiero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 13 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| (1) | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| (2) | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.

1

---
#### STATE v. ALEXANDER EDWARDS.

*Indictment.*

An indictment charging a misdemeanor as a felony does not raise the grade-of the oflfence : calling it a felony does not make it one.

*(Stale*v. *Slagle,*S3 N. C., C53; *Stale*v. *Watts, Jb., G56; State*v. *Staton,*S3 NT. C., 6-34; *State*v. *Upchurch,*9 Ired., 4S4, cited and approved).

INDICTMENT for burning an uninhabited house tried at January Term, 1884, of CUMBERLAND Superior Court, before *dlaePute, J.*

The indictment was found at fall tern:, 1883, and is in substance as follows: The jurors, &c., present that the defendant, &c., did unlawfully, wilfully, maliciously and feloniously set-lire to and burn a certain uninhabited house, the property of J. C. Blocker, with intent to destroy said house and to injure said Blocker, contrary, &c.

The jury- returned a verdict- of guilty, and the defendant-moved in arrest of judgment, which motion was sustained and the state solicitor appealed.

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

*Messrs. J. W. Hinsdale*and *W. A. Guthrie,*for defendant.

Asiie, J.

The defendant is indicted for burning an uninhabited house, which by statute is made a misdemeanor (Bat. Rev.,' ch. 32, §93), and the defendant moved to arrest judgment upon the ground that the offence, being only a misdemeanor, is charged to have'been done “ feloniously,” and that the indictment was therefore defective. But this court has repeatedly held that the use of the term “feloniously” in an indictment for a misdemeanor does not raise the grade of the offence, and the word is to be treated as surplusage : that calling a misdemeanor a felony does not make it one. *State*v. *Slagle,*82 N. C., 653 ; *State*v. *Watts, Ib.,*656 ; *State*v. *Slaton,*88 N. C., 654; *State*v. *Upchurch,*9 Ired., 454. There is error.

Error.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                       674
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,950
<PP&E>                                           2,391
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,280
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,509
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            62
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,232
<SALES>                                          7,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,460
<CGS>                                              619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,977
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,640)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.79)


</TABLE>
WOT : : 28 July 1958
MEMORANDUM FOR COL CURTIN
SUBJECT: Status of Review of Statement of Work for STL at Cooke .

1. Will you attempt to complete @ review of the STL work state-
ment for Cocke as soon as possible with Glasser, Evans, and Porter,
and let me know your feelings on this subject.

2. It de my understanding that the portion dealing with the
Atlas and Titan is probably acceptable byt. that the portion dealing -
with the Thor identifies several problems concerned with acceptance,
launching, and interface with the 117L. I would appreciate it it -
this could be reviewed among yourselves and later with me, prior

S|IGNED

CHARLES H, TERHUWE, JR.
Colonel, USAF
Sow, Deputy Commander .
. Technical Operations
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 4, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00795

- CV

Peter Giorgiutti , Appellant

v.

Valeria Pozhitkova , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JU STIC ES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

Having reviewed the record , the Court holds that Peter Giorgiutti has not prosecuted his appeal

and did n ot comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses

the appe al for wan t of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both

in this Court and in the court below.
Cite as: Opinion No. 95-022 (July 6, 1995) (unpublished)

A GRICULTUR E ) A GRICULTURAL L AND P RESERVATION ) L ANDOWNER ' S D EVELOPMENT R IGHTS July 6, 1995 The Honorable Lewis R. Riley Secretary of Agriculture You have requested our opinion regarding the development rights of a landowner under §2- 513(b) of the Agriculture Article, Maryland Code. Specifically, your question is whether certain landown ers have a right to construct a dwelling for their child's use on land that is subject to an easement under the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program. These landowners had a sales contractto buy the land in question at the time that the easement was sold to the Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation by the prior landowners. The successor landowners were not parties to the sale of the easement. In a recent letter of advice (copy attached), Assistant Attorney General Craig A. Nielsen, Counsel to the Department of Agriculture, advised that the only persons entitled to construct a dwelling for a child on the land are the ones who actually sold the easement to the Foundation. Successor landowners have no such right, even if they had an equitable interest in the land at the time that the easement was sold. We have carefully reviewed the matter and agree with Mr. Nielsen's analysis and conclusion. J. Joseph Curran, Jr. Attorney General Jack Schwartz Chief Counsel Opinions & Advice