alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,241,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,845,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                   462,205
<INVENTORY>                                     33,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,726,438
<PP&E>                                      16,436,453
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,757,662
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,438,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,306,136
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,804
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,848,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,438,274
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,780,016
<CGS>                                        3,533,872
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,285,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,525,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,525,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,525,053)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lewis Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30169

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lewis Lynn Mitchell, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mitchell’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Lewis Lynn Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. *See United States v.*
      *871
      *Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Mitchell was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that was lowered by Amendment 782 and he is ineligible for a reduction. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *United States v. Wesson,*583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. *See Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Mitchell’s contention that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. *See United States v. Waters,*648 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Matta ZEINALI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PENSE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1085

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 28, 2017

Decided: November 29, 2017

Morris E. Fischer, LAW OFFICE OF MORRIS E. FISCHER, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Matta Zeinali appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Zeina-li’s employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Zeinali v. Pense,*No. 1:15-cv-01599-MJG, 2016 WL 7374511 (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                            GOODYEAR CAPITAL TRUST I


                  The undersigned Trustees of Goodyear Capital Trust I (the
"Trust"), pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss.3801, et
seq.), HEREBY CERTIFY:

                  1. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is:

                            Goodyear Capital Trust I

                  2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
Delaware Trustee of the Trust in the state of Delaware is Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, National Association, c/o JPMorgan Chase Bank, Attention: Institutional
Trust Services, 500 Stanton Christiana Road, Floor3/OPS4, Newark, Delaware
19713.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the Trustees
of the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the 12th day of
June, 2002.


                                 DELAWARE TRUSTEE:

                                 Chase Manhattan Bank USA, National Association


                                 By: /s/Dennis Kelly
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Dennis Kelly
                                          Title:  Assistant Vice President


                                 PROPERTY TRUSTEE:

                                 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

                                 By: /s/ Patrick J. Healy
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Patrick J. Healy
                                          Title:  Vice President


                                 REGULAR TRUSTEE:


                                 /s/ Stephanie W. Bergeron
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                          Stephanie W. Bergeron
# L_2004242EN.01000602.xml

| 14.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 242/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 242/6

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 154/2002 of 21 January 2002 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71 on the common organisation of the market in seeds and fixing the aid granted in the seeds sector for the 2002/03 and 2003/04 marketing years

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 25 of 29 January 2002
  )

On page 18, in Article 1(1) (relating to Article 3(4)(a), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EEC) No 2358/71):

for:

‘The maximum quantity of seed other than rice seed on which the aid is payable shall be equal to the sum of the quantities relating to each Member State which are established on the basis of the capped average of the harvested quantities taken into account for the 1996/1997 to 2000/2001 marketing years, plus 5 %.’,

read:

‘The maximum quantity of seed other than rice seed on which the aid is payable shall be equal to the sum of the quantities relating to each Member State which are established on the basis of the average of the harvested quantities taken into account for the 1996/97 to 2000/01 marketing years, excluding the two extremes, plus 5 %.’

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05229]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FR ID 76259]


SES Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has appointed the following executives 
to the Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB):

Trent Harkrader
Debra Jordan
Holly Saurer

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-05229 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Javier CARABALLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6918

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 2017

Decided: December 13, 2017

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Katherine Lee Martin, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hector Javier Caraballo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caraballo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        LAST MILE LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Last Mile
Logistics Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian P. Flood, President, Chief Operating
Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and 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:

         (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 as of and for the periods indicated.

Date:  May 8, 2007                 /s/Brian P. Flood
                                   ------------------
                                   Brian P. Flood
                                   President, Chief Operating Officer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

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

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial Officer 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 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.

|                  |                                                                  
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|December 17, 2007 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
Chief Financial Officer

---
# EUR-Lex - 32002R1065 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R1065

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/2002 of 19 June 2002 amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals **

*
Official Journal L 162 , 20/06/2002 P. 0017 - 0018 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/2002

of 19 June 2002

amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 13(8) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1028/2002(3).

(2) On the basis of today's cif prices and cif forward delivery prices, taking foreseeable developments on the market into account, the corrective amount at present applicable to the refund on cereals should be altered.

(3) The corrective amount must be fixed according to the same procedure as the refund. It may be altered in the period between fixings,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 which is applicable to the export refunds fixed in advance in respect of the products referred to, except for malt, is hereby altered to the amounts set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 June 2002.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 June 2002.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 155, 14.6.2002, p. 52.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 19 June 2002 amending the corrective amount applicable to the refund on cereals

>TABLE>

NB:

The product codes and the "A" series destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1) as amended.

The numeric destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2020/2001 (OJ L 273, 16.10.2001, p. 6).

The other destinations are as follows:

C01 All destinations except for Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia,

C03 Poland, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Norway, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Russia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, former Republic of Yugoslavia with the exception of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Malta, Cyprus and Turkey,

C04 All destinations except for Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia,

C05 Hungary,

C08 All destinations except for Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Malta, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuweit, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 19, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41559

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS ALEXANDER VALDEZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2572-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Alexander Valdez-Medina (Valdez) appeals the 48-month

sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for

illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues

that the district court erred by finding that his prior Texas

felony conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of

violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We have held,

however, that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation is a

crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it was

equivalent to the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling.
No. 05-41559

-2-

United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006). Valdez concedes that

his argument is foreclosed by Garcia-Mendez and raises it to

preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. 

Valdez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Valdez

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a

majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d

268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Valdez

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it also to

preserve it for further review. 

Valdez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. We REMAND to

the district court for correction of the judgment pursuant to FED.

R. CRIM. P. 36 to reflect, in the written Statement of Reasons, that

Valdez had a criminal history category IV, not V, and that the

applicable guidelines range was 57 to 71 months of imprisonment,

not 70 to 87 months.

AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Theodore A. Boutacoff, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 4, 2009 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IRIDEX Corporation.

Date: May 15, 2009

|       |  |                                      
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ THEODORE A. BOUTACOFF            
|Name:  |  | Theodore A. Boutacoff                
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|       |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RAMP SERIES 2006-RZ5 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of December 1, 2006 (as amended  from time to time,  the  "Agreement"),
among  Residential  Asset  Mortgage  Products,  Inc., as depositor,  Residential
Funding Company, LLC, as master servicer, and U.S. Bank National Association, as
trustee,  does hereby  certify  that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
     -------------------------
    Name: Anthony N. Renzi
    Title: Managing Director