alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40936 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ONE PIECE OF REAL PROPERTY 

LOCATED IN HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant,

TERESA MENDIOLA,

Claimant-Appellant,

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CV-283

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Teresa Mendiola appeals from a jury’s finding that she knew

of and consented to drug trafficking activity on her property. 

In accordance with the jury’s finding on this subject, the

district court ordered the forfeiture of Mendiola’s property

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). Mendiola argues that the

district court abused its discretion when it did not include the
No. 99-40936 

-2-

requirement of actual knowledge in the jury verdict form as

requested by her. In her notice of appeal, Mendiola indicated

that she was seeking review from the district court’s denial of

her motion for a new trial, but she did not designate the

underlying judgment for appeal. Nevertheless, the Government

addressed the underlying judgment in its brief and was not

prejudiced by Mendiola’s failure to comply strictly with Fed. R.

App. P. 3(c). See Turnbull v. United States, 929 F.2d 173, 176-

77 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Although not included in the written verdict form, the

district court orally instructed the jury that it must find

actual as opposed to constructive knowledge. See United States

v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 245 (5th Cir. 1998). Likewise,

Mendiola’s attorney emphasized to the jury during closing

argument that the knowledge must be actual rather than

constructive. See Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska, 154 F.3d

259, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); Consolidated Cigar Co. v. Texas

Commerce Bank, 749 F.2d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir. 1985). The district

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mendiola’s

request that the term “actual knowledge” be included in the

verdict form. See McCoy v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 371, 375 (5th

Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Form of Amendment to the Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 [Date] 
 Mr. Bruce A. Carbonari 
 [Address]

 Re: Amendment of Special Retention Payment Letter 
 Dear
Bruce: 
 By letter dated January 2, 2002 (the “Letter Agreement”), the Company extended a special retention payment opportunity to you. Since
that time, legislation was enacted governing deferred compensation (Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code). Because you are currently a “specified employee” as defined in Section 409A, and you will likely continue to be classified
as a specified employee, we are amending your Letter Agreement as follows: 
 The Letter Agreement is amended to provide that the Special Management Retention
Payment will not be paid earlier than six months following your separation from service (as defined in Section 409A). 
 Please sign below to indicate
your agreement to this amendment of the Letter Agreement. 
  

			
	Sincerely,	 	
		
	  
	 	

 I have read this letter and agree to the amendment to my Special Management Retention Payment arrangement as set
forth above. 
  

			
	  
	    	                      

	Bruce A. Carbonari	    	Date
# CE2004078EN.01088701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/887 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/887

---

(2004/C 78 E/0938)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3954/03

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Issue of one-euro banknotes

Subject:

In many countries, and especially in Italy, the introduction of the euro and the accompanying replacement of national currencies has led to a significant rise in inflation, particularly in consumer and retail prices.

The rise in inflation is depressing consumption and significantly reducing the purchasing power of the most vulnerable sectors of Europe's population, especially pensioners.

Consumers often still find themselves unprepared for using the new European currency.

Had the Commission anticipated these consequences?

Does the Commission not consider that it would be desirable to allow the issue of one-euro banknotes, thus giving consumers the instant psychological impression that the notes are in fact worth more, particularly in Italy?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

(15 January 2004)

The Commission's analysis of the evolution of the harmonised consumer price index shows that the introduction of the euro impinged on the inflation rate, although the effect has been very limited. In the euro area as a whole, only up to 0,3 % rate points at most of the euro area inflation rate of 2,3 % in 2002 (2,6 % for Italy) can be attributed to the introduction of the euro. Price increases in certain sectors were somewhat higher (e.g. restaurants, hotels, services, etc.), although their impact on the overall harmonised consumer price index is rather small since such items only represent a small share of the overall consumer basket.

The latest Eurobarometer survey (published on 15 December 2003) indicates that consumers appreciate the euro. In particular the results concerning the euro banknotes and coins show that in general citizens handle the single currency very well. 92 % (92 % in Italy) do not have any problems in handling the euro banknotes, while 71 % (75 % in Italy) find it easy to distinguish and use the coins.

The same survey also points out that only 31 % of the euro area citizens are in favour of a one-euro banknote. Support for such a banknote only originates from two countries, where a majority (76 % in Italy, 70 % in Greece) would welcome the introduction of a one-euro banknote. However, in the ten other euro-area countries, there is a clear majority (exceeding 60 % in all cases and even reaching almost 90 % in a number of countries) against the introduction of such an additional banknote.

In accordance with the EC Treaty, any decision on banknote denominations would have to be taken by the European Central Bank (ECB) which has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of euro banknotes. The ECB has decided to look into the matter.

---
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: August 15, 2011 | By:  | /s/ Joe Noto                                              |
|-----------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |      | Joe NotoChief Financial Officer (principal accounting officer) |
**SUMMARY
OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 22, 2004 BETWEEN REYNALDO ARELLANO VENAVIDEZ
(** **A** **ARELLANO** **@** **)
IN TEPIC NAYARIT AND ON JULY 2, 2004 BY MINERA GAVILAN S.A. DE C.V.
(** **A** **GAVILAN** **@** **),
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY FOR THE AS DE ORO PROPERTY
(** **A** **THE
PROPERTY** **@** **)
NAYARIT STATE, MEXICO.**
 
 Arellano
confirmed he is a Mexican citizen and Gavilán confirmed it is a Mexican
corporation in good standing.
 
 Gavilán
y Arellano agree to the following terms and conditions.
 
 Arellano
agrees to sell 100% of his rights to the property under the following terms and
conditions:
 
 1)
    I)
      US$10,000 plus IVA at the moment of signing this agreement for the first
      12 months.
 ii)
US$10,000 plus IVA, 12 months after the signing of this agreement.
 iii)
US$10,000 plus IVA, 24 months after the signing of this agreement.
 iv)
US$20,000 plus IVA, 36 months after the signing of this agreement
 
 In
case of termination of this agreement, Gavilán must provide all work information
(reports, documents, etc.) to Arellano within 60 days after the day of ending
this agreement.
REF ID:A72084 

NATIONAL SECURITY ·AGENCY 

Washington 25, D. c. ,, ... . , 

GENERAL ORDERS 

NUMBER 14 1 Februa.ey 1955 

APPOINTMENT TO NSA CIVILIAN 

PROMOTION REVIEW BOARD 

SECTION I - RESCISSION 

SECTION II - APPOINTMENT TO NSA CIVILIAN 

PROMOTION REVIEW BOARD 

.SECTION-I - RESCISSION 

NSA General Orders Number 30, dated 26 April 1954, is hereby 

rescinded. 

SECTION II - APPOIN'I'MENT '1'0 NSA CIVILIAN 

PROMOTION REVIEW BOARD 

1. Pursuant to NSA Regul1:1.tion number 32-6, dated 10 September 1953, membership of the NSA Civilian Promotion Review Board is 

announced as follows: 

Members 

Maj. Gen. John B. Ackerman, USAF C/S 

Mr •. William F. Frfedm&n s/ ASST 

Mr. Maurice H. Klein PERS 

Mr. Shelby L. Patterson '!'NG 

Chier or Starr Division or Office; 

or his designated representative, 

where position vacancy exists. 

Alternates , 

CAPT D. M. Agnew, USN 

Mr. Oliver R. Kirby 

Mr. John L. Sullivan 

Dr. Sydney Jaffe 

OOS/A 

PROD 

PERS 

TNG 

2. Mr. A. W. Ulino, Chief, Civilian Personnel Branch, is appointed 

to serve as Secretary to this Board without vote. Mr. Cha"rlea E. · Snyder, Assistant Chief, Civilian Personnel Branch, is appointed Alternate Secretary. 

BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CAN:mE: 

OFFICIAL: 

JiYrl~ 

D. M: GROSJEAN 

Major, WAC 

Actg. Asst. AG 

DISTRIBt11'lON I plus 

Individuals Concerned 

JOHN B ACKERMAN 

Major General, US Air Force 

Chief of Statt 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 02-07-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

. ,_
**TKP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9
- 03 26 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LAWRENCE MATTHEW BRASDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 4 5 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 11 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 21 2020

07/21/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0326
.. - ,. 

USCIB: . 1.3. 2/ 62 

19 May 1955 

GGNFIBfli'fiAfi 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE M11MBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Clearance for Category III CCJUNT (PETTIBONE). 

1. The enclosure is forwarded with a request by the Director, 

National Security Agency that USCIB determine the "need-to-know" of 

Mr. Pettibone as the replacement for Mr. Wilkens. 

2. Through informal ' inquiry it has been determined that due to 

compartmentation within the Bureau of the Budget it would be quite 

awkward for NSA budget matters to be handled by other Bureau of the 

Budget personnel presentl.¥ cleared and indoctrinated for Category III 

CCMINT. 

3. It is requested that your views on this proposal be entered 

on the attached. vote sheet, which should be returned to this office 

by close or business, 1 June 1955. 

USCIB 

Enclosure 

NSA Serial 3394 dtd 17 May 1955. 

USCIB: 13.2/62 ltvmu: '/.Y: QGM:EN'i' 81~ ONLY 
CONFIDE.NT••At A 

REF ID:A651~ 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, USCIB 

SUBJECT: Clearance for Access to CCMINT 

Serial: 3394 

17 MAY 1955 

References: (a) USCIB 13.7/15 dated 18 May 1954 

(b) USCIB 13.7/19 ~ated 2 June 1954 

(c) USCIB 13.3/5 dated 11 Jan 1955 

1. Mr. Henry E. Wilkens, who fonnerly handled this .Agency's 

affairs with Bl,lreau of the Budget, has been debriefed. 

2. Incl.osure 2 to reference ( c) has been examined, and the 

inquiry required by paragraph 5 of reference (b) has been made, 

with negative results. 

3. It is therefore requested that pennission be granted for 

this Agency to indoctrinate for CCMINT, Mr. Gerry E. Pettibone, 

replacing Mr. Wilkens. 

FOR THE D~CTOR: 

(Signed) C. M. MILLER, Jr. 

Major AGC 

Asst. Adj. Gen. 

Enclosure with USCIB 13,2/62 dtd 19 May 1955. 

CONFIDEf'•.tftAL
#### In re Hammer.

*January 10*—

January 28, *1902.*

Certiorari: *Chamber orders: Adequate remedy: Practice.*

1. A common-law writ of *certiorari*will not issue wlien títere is an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise.

2. Petitioner was brought before the circuit judge at chambers in *habeas corpus*proceedings, and, on being remanded, applied to the supreme court for a writ of *certiorari. Held,*that the application should be denied, as petitioner had an adequate remedy by application to the circuit court to review such order, and then, if adverse to petitioner, under sec. 3043, Stats. 1898, a writ of error could issue to review the order of the circuit court affirming the order made at chambers.

Appt.icattoN for a writ of *certiorari.'*

*Denied.*

*D. D.*Sutherland, for the petitioner. [No brief on file.]

*97Per Ouriam:.

*Habeas corpus*proceedings were brought by the petitioner, Hammer, before the Honorable Michael Kir-WAN, circuit judge of the Fourth circuit, and upon hearing thereof the petitioner was remanded to the county jail. Thereupon the petitioner applied to this court for a writ of *certiorari*to review the action of the circuit judge. The application must be denied. A common-law writ of *certiorari*will not issue where there is an adequate remedy by appeal or otherwisa *State ex rel. C. & N. W. R. Co. v. Oshkosh, A. & B. W. R. Co.*100 Wis. 538. In the present case, while there is no remedy by appeal or writ of error from the order of the circuit judge at chambers *(State v.*Brownell, 80 Wis. 563), there is another complete remedy. The petitioner can by proper proceedings have the order of the judge at chambers reviewed by the circuit court, and, if the ruling of the court is adverse to him, can bring the matter before this court by writ of error. Stats. 1898, sec. 3043. This is doubtless the proper procedure. This remedy being open to the petitioner, no writ of *certiorari*will be issued.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Kenneth W. Brimmer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  May 14, 2008 | /s/ Kenneth W. Brimmer 
|------------------- | -----------------------
|                    | Chief Executive Officer
Order entered September 6, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00943
- CV
DEUTSCHE BANK NATION AL TRUST COMPANY, Appellant
V. KINGMAN HOLDINGS, LL C, Appellee On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwa ll County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1
- 12
- 883 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s September 4, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file its brief by November 4, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006
of Intelligent Systems Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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 presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; andb)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2006
    /s/ J. Leland StrangeJ. Leland StrangeChief Executive Officer
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 AUGUST 2015 

I May 1964 

Report 210 

STOPPER Developments 

Discussed production of trackers. All goes well 

at EDL. June 15 delivery is to be met and they are prepared 

to continue to produce at the rate of one every two weeks, so 

long as someone continues to support long lead items. As 

stated in their new paper, dated 27 April, File No. SSD32- 

3324, a copy enclosed for Harold Willis; a copy for was 

forwarded via Cople1and -- they expect a contract from 

someone soon on the production units. They have set no 

date beyond which they cannot fulfill the production schedule 

but must soon if the contract is not placed. In accordance 

with Harold Willis' telephone message, I indicated that this 

matter might be resolved during the week of 4 May. 

Lockheed is getting nervous about installation instructions. 

They were told that the most likely method of operation would 

be 81/2 pounds of added weight to work on 162 and birds, but 

that I had no data on which bird would be the first one. 

EDL seem to have the idea again as to the purpose of 

the 50K vulnerability project which they call Firefly. 

Attached is a list of eight people who will be knowledgeable 

on all results of the project and four men who will be 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

1 AUGUST 2015 

2 

consultants one one or more matters that will be only a part 

of the project's combined output. The consultants will not 

know the total status of our knowledge about the vulnerability 

of the satellite but will only know that vulnerability 

aspect that they have worked on. Currently work is in progress 

in analyzing the Soviet Space Coverage capability and some 

equipment capabilities that USSR have now or may be building. 

EDL requested an address to which they can send TK 

and SI reports. These reports will be written because they 

have some bearing on our vulnerability, but will have no 

reference to the EDL project Firefly. They must go out thru 

Col. Hunt -- Army Security Officer in charge of TK and SI, 

but may be addressed directly to any address you may supply 

and can be marked for direct transmission to some individual at the address if this is satisfactory with you. 

How shall they address these TK and SI documents?