alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malcolm Demon TYLER, a/k/a Milt, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6691

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: December 4, 2017

*185Malcolm Demon Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Demon Tyler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2256 (2012) motion. Before addressing the merits of Tyler’s appeal, we must first be assured that we have jurisdiction. *Porter v. Zook,*803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). “Ordinarily, a district court order is not final until it has resolved *all*claims as to all parties.” *Porter,*803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted); *see*Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Generally, “a final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” *Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs & Participating Emp’rs,*- U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 773, 779, 187 L.Ed.2d 669 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not adjudicated all of the issues m a case, then there is no final order.” *Porter,*803 F.3d at 696.

Tyler initially challenged his career offender designation based on *Johnson v. United States,*- U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), pursuant to this court’s authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. Subsequently, Tyler was granted leave to supplement his habe-as motion, and Tyler filed a supplement raising claims based on *Mathis v. United States,*- U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016). Because the district court did not resolve the *Mathis*claims raised in Tyler’s supplement, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. *See Porter,*803 F.3d at 695, 699.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and remand to the district court for consideration of Tyler’s *Mathis*claims. We express no opinion regarding the merits of Tyler’s claims. 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 AND REMANDED*
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7540

ANTONIO C. MONROE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00856

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Antonio C. Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Antonio C. Monroe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circ uit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 48 4 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Monroe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 34.13



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Management of

Prudential Asset
Resources, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the Commercial Mortgage-Backed Security
Transactions  RegAB Portfolio (the Platform), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i) (C) & (D), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and
1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Exhibit C to managements assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined
by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



LOGO

March 7, 2016



LOGO
Order entered May 7, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00856-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.B AND R.D.B, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15158

ORDER

We GRANT the May 5, 2015 motion of freelance court reporter Micaela Ynostrosa for 

an extension of time to file a supplemental reporter’s record containing missing exhibits. Ms. 

Ynostrosa shall file the supplemental reporter’s record by MAY 18, 2015.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Ms. Ynostrosa, Joie Rivera, Official Court Reporter for the 255th Judicial 

District Court, and all counsel of record.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Protalix BioTherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Yossi Maimon, Vice President and Chief Financial 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.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: May 6, 2008/s/ Yossi MaimonYossi MaimonVice President and Chief Financial Officer






---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 17080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06304]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-708-000.
    Applicants: TransCameron Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Operational Purchases and Sales Report and Waiver 
Request of TransCameron Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220318-5193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-709-000.
    Applicants: TransCameron Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Reimbursement Filing and Waiver Request of 
TransCameron Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220318-5197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-598-005.
    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership.
    Description: Compliance filing: GLGT RP17-598 Amended & Restated 
Settlement Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220318-5097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 21, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06304 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 230 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 230

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

                      Honoring the Berlin Airlift.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 230

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Allied effort to supply the people of Berlin, Germany, with food, 
        fuel, and supplies in the face of the illegal Soviet blockade that 
        divided the city was one of the greatest military and humanitarian 
        efforts in the history of the world;
Whereas this 15 month Allied effort became known throughout the free world as 
        the ``Berlin Airlift'' and ultimately cost the lives of 78 Allied 
        airmen, of whom 31 were United States fliers;
Whereas this heroic humanitarian undertaking was universally regarded as an 
        unambiguous statement of Western resolve to thwart further Soviet 
        expansion;
Whereas the Berlin Airlift was an unqualified success, both as an instrument of 
        diplomacy and as a life saving rescue of the 2,000,000 inhabitants of 
        West Berlin, with 2,326,205 tons of supplies delivered by 277,728 
        flights over a 462-day period;
Whereas historians and citizens the world over view the success of this 
        courageous action as pivotal to the ultimate defeat of international 
        tyranny, symbolized today by the fall of the Berlin Wall; and
Whereas this inspiring act of resolve must be preserved in the memory of future 
        generations in a positive and dramatic manner: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the celebration of the Berlin 
Airlift should include the presentation of a suitable gift of 
representational art from the citizens of the United States of America 
to the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, commemorating the 
fall of the ``Berlin Wall'' and the reunification of this great city 
and, to this end, civic and corporate leaders across the Nation are 
entrusted to fulfill this intent using private subscription and 
volunteer effort with the encouragement and support of the United 
States Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31999Y0826(01)

**Commission notice on technical adaptations to the method for setting the reference and discount rates (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal C 241 , 26/08/1999 P. 0009 - 0009*

Commission notice on technical adaptations to the method for setting the reference and discount rates

(1999/C 241/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 July 1997 the Commission decided to adopt, with effect from 1 August 1997, a new method for setting and updating the reference and discount rates. Member States were informed by letter (dated 18 August 1997) and a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (C 273 of 9 September 1997).

This method sets the reference rate for each Member State on the basis of indicative rates defined as the monthly average of the five-year interbank swap rates, plus an adjustment premium.

Following entry into the third stage of economic and monetary union on 1 January 1999 and in view of the use of the euro by the financial markets, the Commission has decided to make the following technical adaptations:

1. From 1 August 1999 the reference rate will be identical for the eleven Member States which have adopted the euro;

2. For those countries, the indicative rate will be defined as the average of the five-year interbank swap rates, plus a premium of 75 basis points.

All the other aspects of the method outlined in the Commission notice of 9 September 1997 continue to apply.

For Member States which have not adopted the euro, the method for setting the reference rates is unchanged.
Exhibit 4

                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 Long Island Physician Holdings
Corporation (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, Paul Kolker, Chief Executive 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.

/s/ Paul Kolker
---------------
Paul Kolker,
President, Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
May 14, 2004

      This certification accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-Q
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Vincent Deon BROWN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10629 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 14, 2018

Gail A. Hayworth, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donald Robin McCarty, Law Office of Robin McCarty, Midlothian, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Vincent Deon Brown pled guilty to interference with commerce by robbery and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The' district court sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 57 and 120 months to be followed by concurrent three-year terms of supervised release. As a special condition of Brown’s supervised release, the district court ordered, “The defendant shall participate in mental health treatment services as directed by the probation officer until successfully discharged.”

The sole issue Brown raises on appeal challenges this condition of supervised release. Recognizing that he did not object when the district court pronounced his supervised release conditions, Brown contends that he has demonstrated a reversible plain error because the condition impermissibly delegates to the probation officer the district court’s authority to determine whether he must participate in mental-health treatment.

Imposing the conditions of supervised release “is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.” *United States v. Franklin,*838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court may not delegate its authority “to decide *whether*a defendant will participate in a treatment program,” but it may delegate decisions regarding the details of a treatment-related condition. *Id.*Although Brown relies on *Franklin,*the written judgment in that case stated that the defendant was “required” to participate in a treatment program “as deemed *245necessary and approved by the probation officer.” *Id.*at 567. In nonprecedential opinions we similarly have concluded that requiring an inmate to participate “in a treatment program ‘as directed by the probation officer’ does not constitute an impermissible delegation of authority, as it permits the probation officer to address only the details of the treatment, not the necessity for such treatment.” *United States v. Gutierrez,*698 Fed.Appx. 789, 790 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing cases).

Absent any precedent directly supporting his contention, Brown cannot prevail on plain-error review. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009).

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 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| <PAGE> 38 | Form 10-Q |
|-------------------|-----------|

**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) and Frank A. D’Amelio, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

|  | (1)
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004  (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: February 4, 2005

 

 

/s/ Patricia F.        Russo

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patricia F. RussoChairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

/s/ Frank A. D’Amelio

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frank A. D’AmelioExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

  |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 34 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 34

 Amending paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c) of rule XXV of the Standing 
                          Rules of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              January 6 (legislative day, January 5), 1995

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Amending paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c) of rule XXV of the Standing 
                          Rules of the Senate.

    Resolved, That rule XXV, paragraph 3(a) of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate is amended as follows:
            Strike the figure after ``Budget'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``22''.
            Strike the figure after ``Small Business'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``19''.
    Sec. 2. That rule XXV, paragraph 3(b) of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate is amended as follows:
            Strike the figure after ``Aging'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``19''.
            Strike the figure after ``Intelligence'' and insert in lieu 
        thereof ``17''.
    Sec. 3. That rule XXV, paragraph 3(c) of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate is amended as follows:
            Strike the figure after ``Indian Affairs'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``17''.
                                 <all>
```