alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

    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 First Community Capital Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nigel J. Harrison, President and 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:

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 operating results of the Company.

                                   /s/ Nigel J. Harrison
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                    Nigel J. Harrison
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    August 19, 2002
No. D-2672.

#### In re Disbarment of Hackett.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 961.]
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION 

OF RACHELLE J. NICOLLE, BAR NO. 

5441. 

No. 70182 

FILED 

MAY 0 9 2016 

CHIEF DE 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATIO 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and 

attorney Rachelle J. Nicolle for her resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not 

actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if 

certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state 

bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client 

security fund matters are pending against Nicene; and that she is current 

on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating 

to her practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Nicolle acknowledges that her 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct 

prior to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Nicolle has submitted 

an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

(0) I947A er• 16,-4-13e) 
\ DO/A—et ile-1 

Douglas 

IttP_A 

J. 

Cherr 

J. 

Saitta 

J. 

J. 

The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Rachelle J. Nicolle's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Parraguirre 

Hardesty 

cc: Rachelle J. Nicolle 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NV/ADA 2 

(0) 1947A 0
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dustin James RANEY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30103 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Howard Cobb Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant *285U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Middle & Western Districts of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dustin James Raney challenges the denial of his sentence-reduction motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He claims the court abused its discretion by relying on a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts.

In 2007, our court affirmed Raney’s 235-month, above-Guidelines sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. *United States v. Raney,*226 Fed.Appx. 378, 379 (5th Cir. 2007). He contends that, because his original sentence was 25% above the Guidelines’ advisory sentencing range, he should get a sentence reduction correspondingly 25% above his amended Guidelines’ sentencing range.

“The decision whether to reduce [a] sentence [under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) ] is in the sound discretion of the district judge.” *United States v.*Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1009 (5th Cir. 1995). In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to do so, the court considers: whether, and to what extent, the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors warrant a reduction, *Dillon v. United States,*560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); and “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant’s term of imprisonment”, Guideline § 1B1.10 (ii). n.l(B)(ii).

The court properly considered Raney’s motion, the probation office’s recommendation, the contentions of the parties, Guideline § lBl.lO’s policy statement, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, noting it was denying the motion based on, *inter alia,*Raney’s “history of violence and public safety concerns”. Along that line, the court considered Raney’s firearms offenses and his being disciplined for 11 infractions while in prison for, *inter alia,*possession of a dangerous weapon and two assaults. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(iii) (permitting consideration of post-sentencing conduct). Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Raney’s motion. *Whitebird,*55 F.3d at 1009-10.

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.
No. 11-9153.

#### Morgan *v.*Columbia County Department of Social Services.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23(D)
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in this
Registration Statement (Form S-3) and related Prospectus to Tenneco Inc. and
to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated August 18, 1995
with respect to the December 28, 1994 combined financial statements of Mobil
Plastics Division of Mobil Corporation included in the Current Report of
Tenneco Inc. on Form 8-K dated November 17, 1995 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
Buffalo, New York
October 11, 1996
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

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

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 11, 2009

s0831 

# Order

September 11, 2009

138847 & (20)

ESTATE OF PAMELA ANN PONTE, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138847 COA: 290010 Washtenaw CC: 04-002966-DM ROBERT FRANCIS PONTE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On the order of the Court, the motio n for substitution of parties is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Februa ry 4, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented
should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
 
UNITED FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.                                        EXHIBIT 11.1
COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON
AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
(In Thousands Except Per Share Data)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Ended December 31,1996                      1996        1995        1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computation of net income (loss) applicable
 to common stock:

Net loss before extraordinary item            $  (4,347)      (334)      (689)
Extraordinary item--reduction of Debenture
 liabilities as a result of reorganization        4,326         --         --
Net loss                                            (21)      (334)      (689)
Redeemable preferred stock dividends                 --       (763)      (763)
Accretion of redeemable preferred stock to
 redemption value                                    --         --        (17)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net loss to common stock                            (21)    (1,097)     (1,469)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================================

Computation of average common and common
 equivalent shares:

Common stock outstanding at beginning and
 end of period                                    8,074      8,074       8,074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average common and common equivalent shares       8,074      8,074       8,074
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================================

Per common and common equivalent share:
Net loss before extraordinary item            $   (0.54)     (0.14)      (0.19)
Extraordinary item--reduction of 
 Debenture liabilities as a result of
 reorganization                                    0.54      (0.00)      (0.00)
Net loss                                      $   (0.00)     (0.14)      (0.19)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================================
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 7599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT GORDON BUNGER, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00597

- CCB

- 1; 1:17

- cv - 01329

- CCB )

Submitted : February 15, 2018 Decided: February 20, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert Gordon Bunger, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
R obert Gordon Bunger, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. 47 3, 484 (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 motion states a debata ble claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bunger has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the app eal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                        6644890
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 2013944
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              8981428
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                11757671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         8131090
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      6
<OTHER-SE>                    2728588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  11757611
<SALES>                       11128895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              11128895
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              12173225
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (130,130)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (668,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (668,663)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (114)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.000
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.5


 


English Language Summary


 


Authorization Agreement for Local Commuted Fixed Telephone Services Termo de Autorização do Serviço Telefônico Fixo Comutado Modalidade Local No. 647/2011/SPB-ANATEL


 



	
Parties:

	
Telefônica Brasil S.A., as authorizee, and Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL), as grantor.


	 	 
	
Date:

	
January 18, 2010.


	 	 
	
Term:

	
Indefinite


	 	 
	
Purpose:

	
Authorization to provide local Commuted Fixed Telephone Service in accordance with regulations set forth by ANATEL, for the general public.  This authorization was transferred from Telefônica Brasil S.A. to Vivo S.A. and later transferred back to Telefônica Brasil S.A. pursuant to ANATEL Act No. 6,128/2011.


	 	 
	
Area:

	
Regions I and II of the General Authorization Plan, which includes the state of Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, Ceará, Piauí, Maranhão, Pará, Amapá, Amazonas, Roraima, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina,Paraná, Mato Grosso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Goiás, Tocantins, Rondônia, Acre and Federal District.


	 	 
	
Amount:

	
The amount owed under the grant is R$9,000.00, which was paid at the time of execution of the Authorization Agreement.


	 	 
	
Penalty:

	
Breach of the Authorization Agreement and applicable regulations to Multimedia Communication Services may result in administrative proceedings by ANATEL, the application of warning sanctions, fines, temporary suspension or revocation of licenses.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00160

- CR

ROY GALLARDO

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. M0126

- 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roy Gallardo was convicted of Driving Whi le License Suspended, enhanced.

T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE A NN . § 521.457(a)(2), (f) (Vernon Supp. 2009). He was sentenced to 6

months in jail and a $500 fine. By letter, the Clerk of this Court notified Gallardo that

his appeal was subject to dismissal because the trial court indicated on the certification

of defendant’s right of appeal that Gallardo had no right of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

25.2(d). The Clerk also warned Gallardo that the Court would dismiss his appeal

unless, within 21 days of the date of this letter, a response was filed showing grounds

for continuing the appeal.Gallardo v. State Page 2

No response has been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id .; 44.3.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice D avis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 2, 2010

Do not publish

[CR25]
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 33

To express the sense of the Congress that the Bureau of Labor Statistics

should develop and publish monthly a cost of living index.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1997

Mr. PICKETT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Congress that the Bureau of

Labor Statistics should develop and publish monthly a

cost of living index.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Bureau of Labor Statistics should develop an index—

4 (1) which would provide a reliable means of

5 measuring the monthly change in the cost of living

6 in the United States;

7 (2) for which information would be compiled

8 monthly, and which would be published on a month9 ly basis; and
2

•HCON 33 IH

1 (3) which would be distinct from any index that

2 the Bureau of Labor Statistics now publishes.

Æ
#### Michael MOMENT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwight Dave JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6479

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 12, 2018

Decided: February 22, 2018

John J. Korzen, Vanessa Garrido, Third-Year Law Student, John Allen Riggins, Third-Year Law Student, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appel*286lant. Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Moment seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Appel-lee, the Honorable Dwight D. Jackson, has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed.

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 15, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on April 3, 2017.1 Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Moment’s notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court’s entry of judgment. However, Moment sent the district court a letter dated March 24, 2017, and entered on the district court’s docket on March 30, 2017, inquiring as to the status of his case. We construe this letter as a motion to reopen the appeal period. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). We remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine when Moment received notice of the district court’s entry of its final order and whether he is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6).2 The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further proceedings. We defer action on the motion to dismiss pending the district court’s determination as to whether to reopen the appeal period.

*REMANDED*

1

. For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

2

. Because Moment did not move for an extension of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), he is not eligible for an extension for excusable neglect or good cause. *See Washington v. Bumgarner,*882 F.2d 899, 901 (4th Cir. 1989).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                   CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, T. Kevin DeNicola,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Lyondell Chemical Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m or
     78o(d)); and

(2)  the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     Lyondell Chemical Company.

Date: November 13, 2002             /s/ T. Kevin DeNicola
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    T. Kevin DeNicola
                                    Senior Vice President and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              OF VCA ANTECH, INC.


     This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Report") for the period ended June 30, 2002 of VCA Antech, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

     I, Tomas W. Fuller, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that to
the best of my knowledge:

     (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
           section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
           78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

     (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Issuer.

Dated: August 14, 2002.
                                             /s/ TOMAS W. FULLER
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name: Tomas W. Fuller


Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 14th day of August, 2002.

/s/ Lauren Simmons
----------------------------------
Name: Lauren Simmons
Commission# 1281246
Title: Notary Public -- California

My commission expires: October 21, 2004








                                       2