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. 01-60427

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STANLEY LONGINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:00-CR-163-ALL

_______________________________________

November 1, 2001

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stanley Longino appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Longino asserts that: (1) in light of

testimony by a Government witness indicating that his prior felony conviction order

had been amended, the evidence was insufficient to show that he was a convicted
1United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1998).

2Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

felon; and (2) the district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction

of the prior felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government,

1

 the testimony

regarding the amended order indicated that Longino’s original order of conviction

was amended to reflect that he had earned probation by successfully completing the

Regimented Inmate Discipline Program. That testimony did not negate the value of

the original order as evidence that Longino had been convicted of a felony offense. 

Accordingly, Longino’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.

Longino has not briefed, and therefore has abandoned, his assertion that the

district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction of the original

felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended.2 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    BRUCE A. WILLIAMSON
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | Bruce A. Williamson                  
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                            |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Holdings Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Holdings Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 07-03-0269-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	MARCH 2, 2005

	______________________________

	JACK N JILL DONUTS, INC., APPELLANT

	V.

	EDWARD LLOYD, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A

	A FRANCHISEE OF JACK N JILL DONUTS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2002-519,037; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. DODSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Jack N Jill Donuts, Inc. perfected this appeal to challenge the trial court’s judgment in favor of appellee Edward Lloyd, individually and d/b/a a franchisee of Jack N Jill Donuts.  The final judgment recites that Jack N Jill take nothing by its suit and that Edward Lloyd recover attorney’s fees in the amount of $17,500.

	Pending before this Court is an agreed judgment by which the parties request we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding Lloyd and EDEB, Ltd. attorney’s fees and render judgment that they take nothing from Jack N Jill.2  The parties further request that the portion of the judgment holding that Jack N Jill take nothing from Lloyd and EDEB, Ltd. be affirmed.  Finally, the parties agree to bear their own costs.  The agreed judgment is signed by counsel for all parties.

	Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure we reverse and render in part and affirm in part.  To effectuate the parties’ agreement, that portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding Edward Lloyd, individually and d/b/a a franchisee of Jack N Jill Donuts, and EDEB, Ltd., is reversed and judgment is hereby rendered that they take nothing from Jack N Jill, Donuts, Inc.  The portion of the judgment that Jack N Jill Donuts, Inc. take nothing against Edward Lloyd, individually and d/b/a a franchisee of Jack N Jill Donuts, and EDEB, Ltd. is in all other respects affirmed.   Costs are to be assessed by the party incurring them.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
This fileset includes supporting documents for BART-eligible sources in Oklahoma granted 

waivers by ODEQ from BART based on dispersion modeling. 

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Horseshoe Lake Generating Station Units 7 & 8 

• Horseshoe_01-23-07.pdf 

• Horseshoe_01-30-07.pdf 

• Horseshoe_02-07-07.pdf 

• Horseshoe_02-22-08.pdf 

• Horseshoe_11-30-06.pdf 

• Horseshoe_Nodate.pdf 

Koch Nitrogen Company Enid Nitrogen Plant 

• Koch Nitrogen Enid_02-22-08.pdf 

• Koch Nitrogen Enid_12-01-06.pdf 

• Koch Nitrogen Enid_Nodate.pdf 

Lafarge Tulsa Cement Plant 

• Lafarge_01-15-08.pdf 

• Lafarge_02-22-08.pdf 

• Lafarge_03-17-08.pdf 

• Lafarge_03-19-08.pdf 

• Lafarge_03-27-07.pdf 

• Lafarge_06-16-08.pdf 

• Lafarge_09-20-07.pdf 

• Lafarge_11-02-06.pdf 

• Lafarge_11-13-07.pdf 

• Lafarge_12-01-06.pdf 

• Lafarge_12-12-07.pdf 

PSO Riverside Power Station 

• PSO Riverside_02-22-08.pdf 

• PSO Riverside_10-15-07.pdf 

• PSO Riverside_12-01-06.pdf 

Sinclair Tulsa Refining Company 

• Sinclair_02-22-08.pdf 

• Sinclair_12-01-06.pdf 
Sunoco, Inc. Tulsa Refinery 

• Sunoco_01-02-07.pdf 

• Sunoco_01-10-07.pdf 

• Sunoco_02-22-08.pdf 

• Sunoco_11-28-06.pdf 

Terra Nitrogen, LP Verdigris Plant 

• Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_120106.PDF 

• Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_120106map.PDF 

• Terra Nitrogen Verdigris_waiver.PDF 

Terra International Inc. Woodward Plant

• Terra Woodward_02-22-08.pdf 

• Terra Woodward_12-01-06.pdf 

Valero Ardmore Refinery 

• Valero_02_22_08.pdf 

• Valero_10_24_06.PDF 

• Valero_12_05_06.PDF 

• Valero_12_05_06_b.PDF 

• Valero_DEQ_review.PDF 

Western Farmers Electric Cooperative Mooreland Generating Station 

• WFEC_Mooreland_12_01_06.PDF 

• WFEC_Mooreland_Waiver_022607.PDF 

Wynnewood Refining Company 

• Wynnewood_DEQRequest_100307.pdf 

• Wynnewood_Response_120307.pdf 

• Wynnewood_SourceReview.PDF 

• Wynnewood_WaiverApplication_120406.pdf 

• Wynnewood_WaiverApplication_Map2_2_120406.pdf 

• Wynnewood_Waiver_022208.PDF
#### Thomas Hambrick, administrator, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas S. Crawford, defendant in error.

Tin's case is controlled by the decision in the case of *Sarah Kelly vs. H. H. Brooks et al.,*50 *Georgia Reports,*582, and there was .error in the refusal of the court to grant the revoking order which was asked for.

McCay, Judge, dissented.

Judgments. Statute of limitations. Before Judge Hopkins. Clayton Superior Court.- March Term, 1874.

This case ivas submitted to the presiding judge without the intervention of a jury, upon the following facts:

At the May term, 1864, of Clayton superior court Thomas Plambrick, as administrator upon the estate of Sarah Jones, deceased, recovered a judgment against James F. Johnson, J. H. Johnson and Thomas S. Crawford, for $1,675 00 principal, and $786 00 interest. At the March term, 1869, the defendants moved to vacate said judgment on the ground that the consideration thereof was negro slaves. At the following September term this motion was sustained by Judge Pope, then presiding. About September 1st, 1873, the execution based upon said judgment Avas levied upon the property of Crawford, Avho, upon November 1st of that year, filed his affidavit of illegality, setting up the aforesaid vacating order.

It was also agreed that the question thus presented might be decided as though a motion to vacate said order Avas uoav pending and ready for a hearing.

The court sustained the illegality, and plaintiff excepted.

Peeples *&*Howell, for plaintiff in error.

Speer *&*Stewart, for defendant.

Trippe, Judge. ■

The decision in *Kelly vs. Brooks et al.,*50 *Georgia,*582, controls this case. The judgment which has been vacated by an order of the court on the ground that the consideration of *353the debt was a slave, was not dormant when this motion to rescind that order was made, and should have been granted: See *Tyson vs. McAfee,*50 *Georgia,*279, and *Prescott vs. Bennett et al., Ibid.,*266, and *Mosely vs. Mitchell,*decided at the present term.

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit 13.2****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 Annual Report on Form 20-F ofPerusahaan Perseroan (Persero) PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbk.(the “Company”) for the yearly period endedDecember 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Rinaldi Firmansyah, Director of Finance of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:          (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.     /s/ Rinaldi Firmansyah           Name: Rinaldi Firmansyah Title:    Director of FinanceDate: July 14, 2005
Standard Management Corp.
May 22, 1995
Page 1





November 26, 1997

Standard Management Corporation
9100 Keystone Crossing
Indianapolis, Indiana  46240

RE:  1,000,000 SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I  refer  to  the  Registration  Statement  on Form S-8 (the "Registration
Statement")  being  filed  by  Standard  Management  Corporation,   an  Indiana
corporation (the "Company"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission  under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), relating to  the
registration  of 1,000,000 additional shares of Common Stock, no par value (the
"Additional Shares"),  of  the  Company  issuable  upon  the  exercise of stock
options  granted  under  the Amended and Restated 1992 Stock Option  Plan  (the
"Plan").

     I am familiar with the  proceedings  to  date with respect to the proposed
issuance  of  the  Additional  Shares under the Plan  and  have  examined  such
records, documents and questions  of  law,  and  satisfied  myself  as  to such
matters  of  fact,  as  I have considered relevant and necessary as a basis for
this opinion.

     Based on the foregoing, I am of the opinion that:

     1.    The Company is duly incorporated and validly existing under the laws
of the State of Indiana.

     2.    The Additional  Shares  will  be legally issued, fully paid and non-
assessable  when (i) the Registration Statement  shall  have  become  effective
under the Securities  Act;  (ii)  the  Company's  Board  of Directors or a duly
authorized  committee  thereof  shall  have  duly  adopted  final   resolutions
authorizing  the issuance and sale of the Additional Shares as contemplated  by
the Plan; and  (iii) certificates representing the Additional Shares shall have
been duly executed,  countersigned  and  registered  and  duly  delivered  upon
payment  of  the  agreed consideration therefor in accordance with the terms of
the Plan.

     This opinion is  limited  to  the Business Corporation Law of the State of
Indiana.

     I hereby consent to the filing  of  this  opinion  as  an  Exhibit  to the
Registration  Statement  and to all references to me included in or made a part
of the Registration Statement or related prospectus.


Sincerely yours,

STEPHEN M. COONS

Stephen M. Coons
General Counsel
Opinion issued December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00089-CR

———————————

OSCAR REYES JUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1447076

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Oscar Reyes Juarez pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony 

offense of failing to stop and render assistance in a motor vehicle accident involving 

injury or death. See TEX. TRANSP.CODE § 550.021. Appellant pleaded guilty without 

an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. After a pre-
2

sentence investigation hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to 4 years’ 

incarceration. Appellant filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal. 

The trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial. Because there is no 

longer an appealable judgment of conviction, we have no jurisdiction over this 

appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal. See Slaton v. State, 

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(b) (“Granting a 

new trial restores the case to its position before the former trial . . . .”). 

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending 

motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 1.  Intevac Photonics, Inc.2.  Intevac Pacific Group Holdings Ltd. Pte  Singapore3.  Lotus Technologies, Inc.  Santa Clara, California4.  IRPC, Inc.  Santa Clara, California5.  Solar Implant Technologies, Inc.  California6.  Intevac Foreign Sales Corporation  Barbados7.  Intevac Asia Private Limited  Singapore8.  Intevac Malaysia Sdn Bhd  Malaysia9.  Intevac Limited  Hong Kong10.  Intevac (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd.  China11.  IVAC Co. Ltd.  Korea
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 99.6



                              MANAGEMENT REPORT ON
                              INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
                      SERVICING OF SECURITIZED RECEIVABLES



March 22, 1999


Key Bank USA, National Association management is responsible for establishing
and maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized
receivables, which is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
proper servicing of securitized receivables activity and balances. The system
contains monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to correct deficiencies as
they are identified.

There are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any internal control
including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of
controls - and therefore can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to
servicing of securitized receivables. Further, because of changes in conditions,
the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time.

Key Bank USA, National Association management assessed its internal control over
servicing of securitized receivables as of December 31, 1998. This assessment
was based on criteria for effective internal control described in "Internal
Control- Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this assessment, management
believes that Key Bank USA, National Association maintained effective internal
control over servicing of securitized receivables as of December 31, 1998.



/S/ Craig T. Platt
-------------------------------------
Craig T. Platt
President and Chief Executive Officer
Key Consumer Acceptance Corporation
and
Senior Vice President
Key Bank USA, National Association



/S/ John T. Largent, Jr.
-------------------------------------
John T. Largent, Jr.
Executive Vice President and
Group Manager of Loan Services
Key Services Corp.



                                    Page 21
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James K. Hilger, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of Pyramid
Breweries Inc. (registrant), certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of the registrant;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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; 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 (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 officers 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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting. Date: September 3, 2004 /s/ James K. Hilger  James K. Hilger
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3614 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3614

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2009

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the 
 Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAMS 
              UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSINESS 
              INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958.

    (a) In General.--Section 1 of the Act entitled ``An Act to extend 
temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business Administration'', 
approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109-316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most 
recently amended by section 1 of Public Law 111-43 (123 Stat. 1965), is 
amended by striking ``September 30, 2009'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``October 31, 2009''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on September 29, 2009.

SEC. 2. BUSINESS STABILIZATION PROGRAM.

    Section 506(c) of title V of division A of the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) is amended by striking 
``but shall not include'' and all that follows through ``enactment of 
this Act''.

SEC. 3. NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANY INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS.

    Section 355 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 
689d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Investment Limitations.--A New Markets Venture Capital 
company that is receiving a grant under section 358 may not issue 
debentures guaranteed by the Administrator for any 1 company in an 
aggregate amount that is more than 10 percent of the sum of--
            ``(1) the private capital of the New Markets Venture 
        Capital company; and
            ``(2) the total amount of leverage projected by the New 
        Markets Venture Capital company in the business plan of the New 
        Markets Venture Capital company in effect on the date on which 
        the Administrator granted final approval to operate as a New 
        Markets Venture Capital company under section 354(e).''.
                                 <all>
```