alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________
No. 96-50055 Summary Calendar

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LIGIA BALU, also known as Rita Dimici, also known as Rita Dimuci, also known as Sanel Stolzenberg, also known as Chanel Stolzenberg, also known as Chanel Solzenberg, also known as Sanel Solzenberg, also known as Lidia Balu,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-90-CR-43-1

________________________________________________ April 8, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ligia Balu appeals the district court’s denial of her motion

for modification of probation. Balu argues that the district court

violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b) by not holding a hearing on her

motion to terminate probation. Rule 32.1(b) requires a hearing

only if the proposed relief is not favorable to the defendant. In2

this case, the proposed relief was favorable. That favorable

relief was not granted does not mandate a hearing under Rule

32.1(b). Balu has shown no reversible error in the district

court’s denial of what is at least he r third motion to terminate

her probation. This court affirmed the denial of an earlier such

motion by Balu on January 25, 1995. Balu’s most recent previous

motion was denied August 25, 1995, and reconsideration was denied

September 1, 1995; no appeal was taken. Instead, the instant

motion, asserting essentially the same grounds, was filed September

28, 1995. The district court clearly proceeded on the assumption

that it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, and we also so

assume (arguendo).

Balu’s motion for expedited hearing is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7323]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Aviation Proceedings; Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 3/
14/97

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days of date of filing.
    Docket Number: OST-97-2208.
    Date filed: March 12, 1997.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: COMP Telex Reso 024f--Botswana, Local Currency Fare 
Changes, Intended effective date: upon government approval.
Paulette V. Twine,
Chief, Documentary Services.
[FR Doc. 97-7323 Filed 3-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification ofChief Executive Officer**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Symmetricom, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “*Company*”) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 1,2007 (the “*Report*”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: September 25,2007
|        | /s/ THOMAS  W. STEIPP                                  |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas W. Steipp                                       |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

*** * * * ***

**Certification ofChief Financial Officer**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Symmetricom, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “*Company*”) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 1,2007 (the “*Report*”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: September 25,2007
|        | /s/ WILLIAM SLATER                                    |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | William Slater                                        |
|   | Executive Vice  President Finance and Administration, |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer and Secretary                |
|   | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer)         |

 

----
# C_2022011EN.01003002.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/30

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Rubnikovich v Council

(Case T-582/21)

(2022/C 11/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Siarhei Rubnikovich (Tarasovo, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                         
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,924,109
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 18,428,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                      35,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              21,389,548
<PP&E>                                           477,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                   228,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                21,662,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,720,013
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       801
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,260,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  21,662,110
<SALES>                                       20,001,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              20,001,585
<CGS>                                         18,294,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    686,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 4,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,076,592
<INCOME-TAX>                                     123,737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              952,855
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                    952,855
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .12
        


</TABLE>
No. 11-10156.

#### Edge *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
Faulk, 

### Scott (OSn
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:

DearRebecca: Faulk, Scott (OST) Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:21 PM 'Cronkhite, Rebecca J (DOT)' EAS at Chisana and Healy Lake Howto UNZIP.html; SecureZIP Attachments.zip

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service situation at Chisana and Healy Lake, Alaska and give you an opportunity to submit any comments if you wish. In anticipation ofthe end of40-Mile Air's current contract on May 31, 2012, the Department issued Order 2012-2-5, on February 6, 2012, to solicit proposals from all interested air carriers to provide service at Chisana and/or Healy Lake. In response to that Order, we received proposals from the incumbent air carrier, 40-Mile Air, to provide EAS at both communities, and one proposal from Wright AirServicefor EAS at Healy Lake. Copies of the proposals are attached and may be accessed online through the Department's Dockets Management System at: http://www.regulations.gov/ by entering "DOT-OST-1998-4574" and "DOT-OST1998-3546"inthe "EnterKeyword orID" field, so we will onlybriefly summarizethe proposals here. 40-Mile Air's proposal would continue to offer 2 round trips per week between Healy Lake and Fairbanks utilizing a 5-seatCessna 206 or 207 aircraft, for an annual subsidyof$104,703. Additionally, 40-MileAir proposes to continueEAS operations at Chisana with 2round trips per week between Chisana andTokutilizing a 3-seatCessna 206 or4-seat Cessna207 aircraft, for an annual subsidyof$81,039. Lastly, Wright Air Service submitted one proposal to provide EAS at Healy Lake, offering two round trips per week between Fairbanks and Healy Lake, utilizing a 4-seat Cessna 206 or 3-seat wheel-ski equipped Helio Courier aircraft, for an annual subsidyof$87,360.
We want to give you an opportunity to submit any formal comments for the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs. We request that you submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but in any case no later than April 10, 2012. We will carefully consider your comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision. Ifyou have any questions or ifyou find that you need additional time to draft your comments, please letme know. Please send your comments to me at the following email address: EAS@dot.gov orbyfax to 202-366-7838. If you have any questions, pleasefeel free to contact me at scott.faulk@dot.gov or202-366-9967.
A similar letter has been sent to Steven Hatter, Deputy Commissioner

- Aviation. Please forward this letter to any othercivic officials thatmay wish to submitformal comments. Sincerely, ScottFaulk Essential Air ServiceDivision, X-53 Office ofAviationAnalysis
1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60007

Summary Calender

 

JOHNEIL WATKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STEVE PUCKETT ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:97-CV-166-D-B

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

April 5, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johneil Watkins, Jr. seeks to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal following the district court’s denial of his IFP

motion for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Watkins fails to address the reason for the district court’s

denial of the IFP motion. See Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Therefore, Watkins’ motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, 

and his appeal is DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                   0000818008
<NAME>                        LILLIAN VERNON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      FEB-24-2001
<PERIOD-START>                         FEB-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           AUG-26-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                      13,316
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                   604
<INVENTORY>                                 52,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            87,637
<PP&E>                                      69,695
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             136,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,104
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                       104
<OTHER-SE>                                 107,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               136,227
<SALES>                                     76,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            76,804
<CGS>                                       38,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               82,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,660)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,950)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,950)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.34)


</TABLE>
#### Nielsen v. Pollan

111,911

02/18/2016

Denied.

Unpublished
#### JORGE RAMOS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 34437)

Gruendel, Keller and Mihalakos, Js.

Argued May 28

officially released June 18, 2013

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,976,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,634,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                    160,00
<INVENTORY>                                    515,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,215,700
<PP&E>                                       1,816,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,023,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,502,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,280,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,219,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,502,100
<SALES>                                      4,778,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,778,800
<CGS>                                        2,509,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,509,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,002,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                267,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    80,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            187,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   187,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 996 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

certain federally subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2019 

Ms. CLARKE of New York (for herself, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. SIMPSON, and Ms. 

MENG) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, 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 amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income certain federally subsidized loan repayments for dental school faculty. 

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 ‘‘Dental Loan Repay5 ment Assistance Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 996 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED 

2 LOAN REPAYMENTS FOR DENTAL SCHOOL 

3 FACULTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 108(f)(4) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘, under 

6 a loan repayment program receiving a grant or contract 

7 under section 748(a)(2) of such Act’’ after ‘‘section 338I 

8 of such Act’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 108(f)(4) 

10 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik11 ing ‘‘NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS LOAN REPAY12 MENT PROGRAM AND CERTAIN STATE LOAN REPAYMENT

13 PROGRAMS’’ in the heading thereof and inserting ‘‘CER14 TAIN FEDERAL AND STATE LOAN REPAYMENT PRO15 GRAMS’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

18 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

19 Act. 

20 (d) GAO REPORT.—The Comptroller General of the 

21 United States shall review and report to the appropriate 

22 committees of Congress on the participation of dental pro23 viders and faculty in areas and schools receiving funding 

24 from the Dental Faculty Development and Loan Repay25 ment Program under section 748(a)(2) of the Public 

26 Health Service Act, including the extent to which they reVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:06 Feb 19, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H996.IH H996

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 996 IH

1 main full-time faculty teaching and practicing in dental 

2 clinics located in dental schools, hospitals, or community3 based affiliated sites after receiving funding from the pro4 gram. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
#### BERNARD SMALLS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 33269)

Gruendel, Robinson and Bishop, Js.

Argued October 21

officially released November 12, 2013

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection with the filing by Malex, Inc. (the "Company") of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.







                                               /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Danny Wettreich
                                               Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  September 8, 2006
No. 12-5012.

#### Nguyen *v.*Knowles, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.