alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Manuel RAMIREZ-VILLALZANA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40529 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 18, 2017

Anna Elizabeth Kalluri, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Manuel Ramirez-Villalzana appeals his 46-month, within-guidelines sentence *353for illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, asserting that the district court erroneously applied a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement, under former U.S.S.G. § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(A)(ii), based on his prior Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation. The enhancement was improper, Ramirez-Villalzana contends, because the Texas burglary statute, Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a), does not categorically define a “generic” burglary of a dwelling and is not divisible in light of *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. *See United States v. Calderon-Pena,*383 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 2004).

In *Mathis,*the Supreme Court explained that the modified categorical approach may be used to distinguish only between alternative elements of a statutory offense, not alternative means of satisfying a single element. 136 S.Ct. at 2249-50, Whether the district court erred thus turns on whether, in light of *Mathis,*§ 30.02(a)’s three subsections constitute elements or means. While the instant appeal was pending, we concluded that § 30.02(a) is a divisible, elements-based statute. *See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016). Consequently, “the modified categorical approach applies to determine which of the provisions of § 30.02(a) was the basis of [Ramirez-Villalzana’s] convietion[s].” *Id.*at 671.

Our review of the permissible record documents reveals that Ramirez-Villalza-na’s prior convictions were based on § 30.02(a)(1) and were therefore “generic” burglaries. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014); *see United States v. Constante,*544 F.3d 584, 585 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the district court properly applied the. 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *353the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### AMISONE of Pago Pago, MANUTAPILI of Fagatogo, Plaintiffs v. KATINA of Pago Pago, Defendant

No. 6-1935

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Matai Name: “Tuaolo” of Pago Pago]

September 19, 1936

H. P. WOOD, *Chief Judge;*PULETU and MULI, *District Judges*

JUDGMENT

This case involving .the succession to the High Talking Chief name Tuaolo in Pago Pago came on to be heard before the High Court on the 16th day of September 1936.

Present: *Chief Justice*H. P. WOOD, *District Judge*PULETU, *District Judge*MULI.

The candidates for the name were, proponent, Katina *534represented by Counsel Tupua; and objectors Manutapili represented by Counsel Fano and Amisone represented by Counsel Asuega.

The proponent and objectors all named three of the former holders of the name as follows: — Tuaolos Leaoa, Tuli and Maliuga. Manutapili in addition to these named Tuaolos Fealofani and Siasaga. Amisone also named Siasaga.

The evidence offered by Katina which was uncontradicted, is that he is the grandson of Tuaolo Leaoa. Manutapili is the brother of Tuaolo Maliuga. Amisone is the son of the brother of Tuaolo Tuli by a second marriage.

Each of the candidates testified as to the service rendered to the last holder of the name Maliuga. Both Katina and Amisone and three witnesses for each stated under oath that Maliuga immediately before his death made a request that each of them respectively be considered by the family as the holder of the name after his death. Katina and Amisone are comparatively young men; Amisone being a teacher in the public school. Manutapili is not a young man.

Under the rule of “hereditary right” recommended to the court as a guide to its decisions in matai name cases in the Fono of 1926 it seems to all the members of the Court that Manutapili more nearly fits in with the requirements of this assumption than either Katina or Amisone. An own brother, we think, is closer in relation to the deceased holder of a matai name than a grandson of a former holder, especially as the father of Katina did not hold the name; and certainly Manutapili being the brother of the last holder of the name is closer in relationship than Amisone who is the son of a brother of a former holder of the name.

It is accordingly ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the matai name TUAOLO shall be held by MANUTAPILI *535of Fagatogo, on the condition however that he from the time of assuming the name change his residence to Pago Pago, which is the situs of the Talking Chief name Tuaolo.

Court costs of $25.00 shall be paid equally by Katina and Amisone.
Exhibit 99.2  Press Release


PRESS RELEASE
March 30, 2001

                             For further information contact:
                                 David M. Bradley
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                 825 Central Avenue
                                 Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                 515-576-7531

                    NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                            STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, March 30, 2001 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, announced today that it will commence a stock repurchase program. The
program authorizes the Company to repurchase up to 100,000 shares of its
outstanding shares of common stock during the next twelve months. The
repurchases will be made from time to time, in open market transactions, at the
discretion of management.

This new program will commence at the completion of the Company's current
repurchase program which was announced on October 27, 2000, of which 3,000
shares remain to be purchased. The Company has 1,857,380 shares of common stock
currently outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $388 million in assets, as of December
31, 2000, is the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a
federally chartered stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented
institution serving Iowa through 8 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada,
Ames, Perry, Burlington and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
**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 ofDepomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John F. Hamilton, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | Date: August 7, 2007    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |   |
|   |                    |   |
|   | /s/ John F. Hamilton    |   |
|   | John F. Hamilton        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:10 PM To: Whiteman, Chad Subject: EPA Response to EO 12866 Comments on EPA Tier 3 dra ft final rule (2060-AQ86) Attachments: EPA Reponse EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_Com mentsV3_2_21_2014.docx



### Chad, attached please find our response to the comm ents you sent on February 21.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any que stions.

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 5:22 PM To: Sargeant, Kathryn Subject: EO 12866 Comments on EPA Tier 3 draft final rule ( 2060-AQ86)



### Kathryn, Attached are some of the EO 12866 interagency c omments on the Tier 3 draft final rule (2060-AQ86). I will send any others as soon as possible. Regards, Chad
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
IN THE MA TIEROF WOOLPERT LLC Respondent FAADOCKET NO. 2013EA250068 (Civil Penalty Proceeding) DMSNO. FAAADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE NOT YET ASSIGNED Hearing Date: NOT YET ASSIGNED Hearing Location: NOT YET ASIGNED 

# RECEIVED MAR 10 2015 

## HEARING DOCKET

REQUEST FORHEARING PURSUANT TO 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 COMES NOW, Respondent, Woolpert LLC, by and !hroughundersigned counsel pursuantto 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.16, andhereby requests a hearing concerning the allegations raised in the Complainant's Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty dated June 18, 2014, which proposes to
assess a civil penaltyinthe amount of$7,000.00. Respondent denies the violations alleged 

### in the Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty andprays that itbe reversed. Respondent requests that a hearing be held inNewYork, N.Y. A hearing is expected to lasttwo (2) full days.Dated: March 4, 2015

2 

### GRE9QR TON, ESQ. The 'Aviation LawFirm 

### .)997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway

Suite 300 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Attorney for RespondentCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date servedby regular U.S. mail, postageprepaid, an original and one (1) copy ofthe foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2014 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 And, further, that I have this date served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, a copy ofthe foregoing Request for Hearing addressed to:

Dated: DanKohlmeyer Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Regional Counsel's Office, AEA-7 1 Aviation Plaza, Room 561 Jamaica, NY 11434 Tel: 718 553-3266 Fax: 718 533-5699 March 4, 2015

S. WINTON, ESQ. The AVIation Law Firm 1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway Suite 300 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Tel: (301) 294-8550 Fax: (866) 568-9886 Attorney for Respondent

3
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2009
(the Report), I, Joseph Fuda, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
      Company.

|Date: February 25, 2011 | /s/
      Joseph Fuda         | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|                        | Joseph Fuda                   | 
|                        | Chief Executive Officer       | 
|                        | (Principal executive officer) | 

---
#### Ricardo AGUILA, and other similarly situated individuals, Teresa Aguila, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CORPORATE CATERERS IV, INC., a Florida profit corporation Defendant, Corporate Caterers II, Inc., Jim Gass, individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15838

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 24, 2017)

Jason Saul Remer and Brody Max Shul-man, Remer & Georges-Pierre, PLLC, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Chris Kleppin and Chelsea A. Lewis, Glasser & Kleppin, Plantation, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

John Samuel Koppel and Mark B. Stern, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and PARKER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Having carefully considered the written submissions and the arguments of the parties and of the *amicus curiae,*we conclude that there is no free standing claim for relief under section 203(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), where, as here, there is no allegation that the employer does not pay the minimum wage. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nachum Falek, Vice President
and Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

| |  | Date: June 2, 2005BY: /S/ Nachum Falek
Nachum FalekVice President andChief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- 1 -

---

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6637 

To prohibit regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 

from applying to abortion or the coverage of abortion or abortion-related 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois (for herself, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. LAMALFA, 

Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. SELF, and Mr. HARRIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers 

Fairness Act from applying to abortion or the coverage 

of abortion or abortion-related services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Love Them Both Act 

5 of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6637 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PREG2 NANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT. 

3 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

4 and the Board of Directors of the Office of Congressional 

5 Workplace Rights may not, pursuant to section 105 of the 

6 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (42 U.S.C. 2000gg–3), 

7 finalize, implement, or enforce any regulation that applies 

8 to abortion or the coverage of abortion or abortion-related 

9 services. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2943

___________ Hussein Abdi Malin, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Starmark, a Masco Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2001 Filed: December 13, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.Hussein Abdi Malin brought an employment-discrimination and hostile-workenvironment suit against StarMark. The district court 1 dismissed the suit with prejudice after both parties filed a stipulation for dismissal so that Malin could pursue his claims according to StarMark’s dispute resolution policy, which required mediation and arbitration of all claims arising out of employment. Malin then moved pro se to reopen the case, asserting he never knowingly agreed to the dismissal stipulation. StarMark opposed the motion, and presented the affidavit of Malin’s-2- former attorney; he attested that he had fully discussed the stipulation with Malin, who had given his informed and unequivocal consent to it. Malin presented no sworn statement or other evidence contradicting his former attorney's affidavit. The district court denied the motion, and Malin appeals. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, because it was not clear error to credit the attorney’s affidavit. See Richards v. Aramark Servs., Inc. , 108 F.3d 925, 927 (8th Cir. 1997) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.4
















CONSENT OF ANTOINE YASSA







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the “Technical Study”) concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading “Item III – Description of the Business – Coulon Property – 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Antoine Yassa


	Name:  Antoine Yassa, P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
Exhibit
23.1




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  To the
Board of Directors of
 Asian
Financial, Inc. and Subsidiaries
   We
consent to the use of our report dated September 2, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Asian Financial, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of June
30, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and other
comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended June 30, 2009, which is incorporated in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Asian Financial, Inc.
    /s/ Moore
Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP
 
 Brea,
California
 September 14,
2009
Essential Air Service At Thief River Falls MN

OST-2001-10642

January 27, 2014 -" 1"1 '8 A

L.I_ -"". '"-\ '1: 41

It has come to the attention of TransportAzumah that several EASmarkets will be experiencing an

interruption in service beginning at the end of this week. The inventory for Thief River Falls MN is zeroed

out in the Great Lakes reservations system after Friday, January 31, 2014. Service interruptions in EAS

communities tend to destroy the passenger base of the markets involved. This leads to numerous bid

periods in which the community exceeds $200 per passenger in subsidy and puts them under constant

risk of being eliminated from the program.

In order to maintain the passenger base at these communities, TransportAzumah proposes the

implementation of emergency interim bus service. These emergency contracts would be issued under

the Department's discretionary authority for an interim period of three months while markets without a

new carrier are bid. TransportAzumah has the ability to implement these services beginning February 1,

2014 using midsized and full sized long distance coaches. During the interim period, there would be no

fare charged on these services.

The following markets would receive emergency interim bus service beginning February 1:

TransportAzumah Emergency Interim Bus Service

Market Hub 1Round Trips Per Day 13 Month Subsidy

Thief River Falls MN MSP 12 I $442,864

TransportAzumah recognizes that this program may require the communities to opt into the alternate

EASprogram for a short period oftime. As with past agreements, communities should be aware that

opting into the alternate EASprogram is not permanent. In this situation, the Department could allow

communities to opt into the alternate EASprogram only during the period of air service hiatus. We

believe that three months is sufficient for motivated air carriers to submit a bid to restore air service to

these comm.unities.

Sample bus schedules are provided below. They are subject to change:

Thief River Falls MN - MSP

Thief River Falls MN > MSP (Daily)

Thief River Falls MN 600a 1200p

MSP 1130a 530p

MSP > Thief River Falls MN (Daily)

MSP 1230p 730p

Thief River Falls MN 600p 100a

In light of the short timeframe available to avoid uninterrupted service, we request expedited

consideration of our request. Due to the length of this contract, we will also need modified payment

arrangements. Please contact us as soon as possible so that we can start on or just after February 1,

2014.

Contact: Joel Anabilah-Azumah, jazumah@transportazumah.com. 347-927-07S0
#### John C. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. WALSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc., Henry J. Kaiser Company and Perini Corporation.

No. 15888.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1966.

Decided Dec. 5, 1966.

Hymen Schlesinger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

*576William C. Walker, Pittsburgh, Pa., Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellees.

Before GANEY, SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This matter was heretofore before this court on an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, 334 F.2d 334 (1964). The said judgment was reversed and the action was remanded to the court below with directions that a new trial be had. The second trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendants and the present appeal followed. We have carefully considered the record of the second trial and find that the grounds urged in support of reversal are clearly without merit.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.