alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1699

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Noel Perez-Plascencia, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 4, 2010 Filed: January 14, 2010

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Noel Perez-Plascencia (Perez) pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2). The district court 1 sentenced him to 57 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and he appeals. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that a special condition of supervised release limiting Perez’s association with gang members violates his constitutional right to freedom of association.

1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.Perez’s plea agreement contains an a ppeal waiver which we will enforce, because the record shows that he entered into the plea agreemen t and appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, and we conclude that enforcement of the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Although the appeal waiver does not cover counsel’s argument--Perez reserved the right to appeal an “unconstitutionally defective” sentence--we do not address th e argument, because Perez will not be subject to the condition until he is released from prison and is likely to be removed from the country upon completi on of his sentence. See United States v. Thomas , 198 F.3d 1063, 1064-65 (8th Cir. 1999) (appellate court will decline to determine constitutional question if it is so premature that court would have to speculate as to presence of real injury).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), to the extent required after en forcing the appeal waiver, we find no nonfrivolous issues that are not encompassed by the waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE JOE FEIJOO,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 24

- 00005

- C R

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against

the Honorable Francisco X. Dominguez

, Judge of the 205th District Court of El Paso, Texas and

concludes that Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the

petition for writ of mandamus , in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

GINA M. PALAFOX, J ustice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Exhibit32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 report on Form 10-Q ofMontana
 Mining Corp. forthe quarterly period ended September
 30, 2009
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Ruairidh
 Campbell, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreport 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 this report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results of operations of
the registrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:
 November5, 2009



/s/
 Ruairidh Campbell

Ruairidh
 Campbell

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
 registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §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.



22
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                           Washington, D.C. 20549

                                 FORM 8-K
                              CURRENT REPORT

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                     Date of report: November 21, 2001
               ---------------------------------------------
                     (Date of earliest event reported)

                           Law Companies Group, Inc.
     ----------------------------------------------------------------
          (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Georgia                                0-19239               58-0537111
--------------------------------    ----------------      -------------------
(State or other jurisdiction of     (Commission File      (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)       Number)               Identification No.)


1105 Sanctuary Parkway, Suite 300, Alpharetta, Georgia        30004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices)                    (Zip code)


                                 (770) 360-0600
                ---------------------------------------------------
                (Registrant's telephone number including area code)

                                        N/A
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         (Former name and former address, if changed since last report)


Item 5.  Other Events

On November  20,  2001,  Law  Companies  Group,  Inc.  ("Law") and MACTEC,  Inc.
("MACTEC")  announced that they had entered into a definitive  merger  agreement
providing for the acquisition of all of the outstanding  shares of preferred and
common  stock  (collectively,  the  "Company  Stock")  by  MACTEC.  Terms of the
agreement  were not  disclosed.  The merger is subject to,  among other  things,
certain  regulatory  approvals  and  approval by the  shareholders  of Law.  The
transaction  is expected to close within 60 days. A copy of the press release is
attached to this Form 8-K as Exhibit 99.

Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

c)      Exhibits

        99   Press release  issued  November 20, 2001 by MACTEC,  Inc. and Law
             Companies Group, Inc.


                              SIGNATURE

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                          Law Companies Group, Inc.

Date:  November 21, 2001                  By:  /s/ Robert B. Fooshee
                                              ----------------------
                                              Robert B. Fooshee
                                              Executive Vice President, Chief
                                              Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Knightdale Airport, Inc. and Carlina, Inc. 

COMPLAINANT 

V. 

Franklin County, North Carolina 

RESPONDENT 

Docket No. 16-13-08 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL 

On November 26,2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) docketed a formal 

complaint filed under 14 CFR Part 16 by Knightdale Airport Inc., and Carlina, Inc. against 

Franklin County, North Carolina. On February 11, the FAA received a Joint Motion to 

Withdraw Complaint, signed by the attorneys for both parties to the matter. The attorneys 

advised that the parties have reached a comprehensive settlement of their disputes and therefore 

jointly move to withdraw the complaint. 

As the parties have resolved their disputes, the joint motion filed pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19 is 

granted. Accordingly, the complaint is withdrawn and the complaint proceeding under FAA 

Docket No. 16-13-08 is hereby dismissed and terminated. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on f#-f{fM.uoAf2L~ , I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy oft e Dismissal for FAA Docket 16-13-08 

addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

John R. Copley, Esquire 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach, P.C. 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Counsel for Respondent 

David R. Guin, Esq. 

Batton & Guin 

P.O. Box603 

l 07 S. Main Street 

Louisburg, NC 27549 

Hand Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

Claudia 

f2adl~ Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20738

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO ALEGRIA, also known as Alexis Gonzalez Quintero, also 

known as Alexis Gonzalez Quinteros, also known as Alexis Gonzalez, also 

known as Kelvin J. Camps, also known as Alexis Quintero,

Defendant-Appellant

Cons. w/ No. 15-20748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUGO ALEGRIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-401-1

USDC No. 4:10-CR-421-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20738 Document: 00513722873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 15-20738

c/w No. 15-20748

2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Hugo Alegria

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alegria has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

* 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.

 Case: 15-20738 Document: 00513722873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 5 to the Treasury Department Circular 570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that Arch Reinsurance Company (NAIC#10348) has redomesticated from the state of Nebraska to the state of Delaware effective September 15, 2014. Federal bond-approving officials should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Department Circular 570 (“Circular”), 2014 Revision, to reflect this change.

                    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at                     *http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/​fsreports/​ref/​suretyBnd/​surety_​home.htm.*

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: March 11, 2015.

Kevin McIntyre,

Manager, Financial Accounting and Services Branch, Bureau of the Fiscal Service.

[FR Doc. 2015-08048 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 28, 2009

p0420 

# Order

April 28, 2009

137705

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137705 COA: 286716 Wayne CC: 07-009589-FH EDDIE LEE BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 24, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

C ORRIGAN , J., not participating for the reasons stated in People v Parsons , order of the Supreme Court, entered March 6, 2007 (Docket No. 132975).
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO 
 CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES

 AND RIGHTS OF SERIES A CUMULATIVE PREFERRED STOCK 

OF 

NBCUNIVERSAL ENTERPRISE, INC. 
 Under Section 242 of the 
 General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware

 NBCUniversal Enterprise, Inc. (the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”), does hereby certify that: 
 1. The undersigned is a
duly elected officer of the Corporation. 
 2. The original Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A
Cumulative Preferred Stock of the the Corporation (the “Original Certificate”) was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on March 19, 2013. 

3. The board of directors of the Corporation (the “Board”), in accordance with Sections 141(f) and 242 of the DGCL, has
declared it advisable that the Original Certificate be amended as set forth in this Certificate of Amendment to the Original Certificate. 
 4. The Corporation’s stockholders have duly approved and adopted this Certificate of Amendment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 228 and 242 and the provisions of the Original
Certificate. 
 5. Pursuant to the foregoing resolutions of the Board and the Corporation’s stockholders, in accordance
with Sections 103 and 242 of the DGCL, the first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Original Certificate is hereby amended by replacing the words “determined by the Board on the first date of issuance of a share or shares of Series A
Cumulative Preferred Stock and maintained on file with the Secretary of the Corporation” with the words “of 5.25% per annum on the Liquidation Preference (as defined below)”. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NBCUniversal Enterprise, Inc. has caused this amendment to the
Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A Cumulative Preferred Stock of the Corporation to be duly executed by its authorized officer this 19th day of March, 2013. 

 

					
	NBCUNIVERSAL ENTERPRISE, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Rosemarie S. Teta

		 	Name:	 	Rosemarie S. Teta
		 	Title:	 	Vice President
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IN RE POLYNT COMPOSITES NORWAY AS, fka Reichhold AS,
Appellant

______________________

2024

- 1905

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/345,655

.

______________________

O R D E R

The Appellant Polynt Composites Norway AS, fka

Reichhold AS having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the p etition for r eview be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

September 24, 2024

Date Case: 24-1905 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/24/2024
Exhibit
      32.2







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 Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Jean
      Perrotti, Chief Financial Officer and Principle Accounting 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, that:





1.
      the
      Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.


Dated: December 20, 2007
            
            /s/ Jean
              PerrottiName:
              Jean PerrottiTitle: Chief Financial Officer And Principle Accounting
              Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Xinhua China Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clement Wu, Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting 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, that to the best of my knowledge:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.		
Dated: February 22, 2006                                                                          /s/ Clement Wu                                                                                                                                                      Clement Wu, Chief Financial			                                                                                                                  Officer and Director (Principal			                                                                                                                  Accounting Officer)
#### Nassau Bank, Plff.; Ritzinger, *et al.,*Defts.

*(Supreme Court, Special Term, New 'York County,*

*Filed December 30,*1886).

1. Practice — Interpleader — When action can be maintained.

An action of interpleader can be maintained in those cases only where there is a serious doubt as to the question involved.

2. Same — When cannot be maintained.

An action of interpleader cannot be maintained where the assignee and attaching creditors do not claim the same debt or dirty from the plaintiff ; nor in a voluntary assignment where it is clear that as against the attaching creditors, the assignee has good title to the money, etc., in the hands of the plaintiff.

*Martin*Smith, for plff.; *Barlow &; Wetmore,*for deft.

*310Andrews, J.

I am of the opinion tbat tbe plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment tbat tbe defendants interplead, for tbe following reasons:

*First.*An action of interpleader can be maintained in those eases only where there is a serious doubt as to the question involved.

*Second.*The assignment made by tbe Kitzingers was not a statutory, but a voluntary one; and, upon the authorities, it seems to be clear that, as against the attaching creditors, the assignee (Yandes) has a good title to the money and other securities in the hands of the' plaintiff. *Hoyt*v. *Thompson,*5 N. Y., 353; *Kelstadt*v. Reilly, 55 How. Pr., 373; *Guillander*v. Howell, 35 N. Y., 659; *Kelly*v. Crapo, 45 N. Y., 86; *Willetts*v. *Waite,*25 N. Y., 584.

Under the decisions, the claim made in the answer of the Mutual Life Ins. Co., that the draft in its favor was *pro tanto*an assignment of the fund, is not well founded. *Chapman*v. *White,*6 N. Y., 412; *Duncan*v. *Berlin,*60 N. Y., 153; *Attorney General*v. *Cont. Ins. Co.,*71 N. Y., 331. And in view of the decision in *Thurber*v. *Blanck,*50 N. Y., 80, I do not see how the allegation of said answer that the assignment is fraudulent can be sustained.

*Third.*The assignee and the attaching creditors do not claim the same debt or duty from the plaintiff.

The cash balance in the plaintiff’s hands is $5,856.03, and it also holds certain notes, and 230 shares of insurance stock of the par value of $50 a share, and, as is claimed, of the actual value of at least $5,750; and the assignee claims these securities as well as all the money.

On November 20,1886, the entire amount of the claims of the attaching creditors, with interest, costs and fees, amounted to only $5,370.41.

It has been repeatedly held that under such circumstances an action of interpleader cannot be maintained. Wait’s Actions and Defenses, vol. 4, p. 153, and cases cited. While I think it may well be doubted whether the doctrine established by the cases is entirely just and fair, I am unable to see why it is not applicable to the present case, although the sheriff, on behalf of the attaching creditors, has brought an action in which he seeks to recover the securities above mentioned as well as the money which the plaintiff holds.

The complaint must be dismissed, with costs to the defendant Yandes. Findings may be settled- on two days’ notice.