alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-40525

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ASCENCION CARDENAS-LEDEZMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-361-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 9, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The court-appointed attorneys for Jose Ascencion CardenasLedezma have filed a motion to withdraw from representation of

Cardenas and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Cardenas has filed no response to his

attorneys’ motion and brief. Our independent review of the brief

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly,

Cardenas’s court-appointed attorneys’ motion to withdraw is

GRANTED; the attorneys are excused from further responsibilities 
No. 

-2-

herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,113
<INVENTORY>                                     53,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         369,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        105,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,145
<SALES>                                        149,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               173,061
<CGS>                                           99,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,656
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             45,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    45,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
        

</TABLE>
T.L. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2150932

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

D.C. KING, A.Y. MARKS, D.A. NORKIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RUSSEL T. ROYSTON

LANCE CORPORAL (E-3), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201600037

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 4 November 2015.

Military Judge: Maj F.W. Hoover, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 2d Light Armored 

Reconnaissance Battalion, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: Maj K.G. Phillips, USMC.

For Appellant: CDR Brian L. Mizer, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

26 April 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted without 

assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved 

by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military 

Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
1

Ogulei, David

From: Marshall, Sarah

Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:24 PM

To: Downey, Shannon; Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: IEPA 6/11/13 letter response

Attachments: Nightingale 6-11-13 Letter Response.pdf

Sarah Marshall 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 

Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Branch 

312-886-6797 

From: Czerniak, George 

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:53 PM 

To: Marshall, Sarah 

Subject: FW: IEPA 6/11/13 letter response 

From: Doug Harris [mailto:doug.harris@veoliaes.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:29 PM 

To: Czerniak, George 

Subject: FW: IEPA 6/11/13 letter response 

George, 

Attached below is a advanced copy of a response to Mr. Nightingale 6/11/13 letter I sent you a copy of this 

morning. Don’t hesitate to call me at the numbers below if you have any questions. 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 

7 Mobile Ave. 

Sauget, IL 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com

www.veoliaes.com

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. is for the sole use of the intended recipient 

and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is 

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message and delete same from all computers. 

From: Doug Harris 

Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 3:25 PM 
2

To: 'Steve.Nightingale@illinois.gov' 

Subject: IEPA 6/11/13 letter response 

Mr. Nightingale, 

Attached is an advanced copy of a letter I sent out today responding to your 6/11/13 letter. If you have any questions 

don’t hesitate to call me at the numbers below. 

Doug Harris 

General Manager 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 

7 Mobile Ave. 

Sauget, IL 62201 

Office 618-271-2804 Ext. 101 

Cell: 618-616-7420 

Fax: 618-271-2128 

Doug.harris@veoliaes.com

www.veoliaes.com

Service First. Safety Always 

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Services North America Corp. is for the sole use of the intended recipient 

and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or distribution is 

prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message and delete same from all computers.
CONSENT

Each of the undersigned hereby consents to the use of its name and references to, and the use of information derived from, the technical report dated September 10, 2009 entitled Pampa El Toro Mineral Resource Technical Report in the following documents, which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the annual report on Form 40-F of Cardero Resource Corp. (the Company) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and which is being incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-151385) of the Company:

1.

The Companys annual information form for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009; and



2.

The Companys managements discussion and analysis for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2009.



DATED January 29, 2010

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd.

(signed)Mark Wanless



Mark Wanless

Per:  (signed)Victor Simposya





Print Name:  Victor Simposya





Title:Partner & Principal Geologist
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COUNTRY JOE STEVENS, aka Singing

Horse,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

HOWARD SKOLNICK; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16876

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00227-BESRAM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Country Joe Stevens, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district

court’s order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). 

Stevens brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Nevada Department of

FILED

JUL 01 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16876

Corrections Administrative Regulations 810 and 711, which deal with religious

faith group activities and programs, and the prison officials’ confiscation of

religious objects, violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of his Native

American religion, his equal protection rights, and his rights under the Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Stevens sought to temporarily

restrain prison officials from refusing Stevens permission to perform his daily

Native American prayer practice. The district court concluded that Stevens failed

to show a significant threat of irreparable injury, and denied the request for a TRO.

Generally, a district court’s denial of an application for a TRO is not an

appealable final order. See Religious Tech. Ctr. Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v.

Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989. Although an “order denominated a

TRO that possesses qualities of a preliminary injunction is a reviewable

interlocutory order,” SEIU v. Nat’l Union of Healthcare Workers, 598 F.3d 1061,

1067 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding a TRO akin to a preliminary injunction where the

district court held an adversarial hearing and where the duration of the TRO

exceeded the ordinary duration for TROs), we conclude that the district court’s

order is not akin to the denial of a preliminary injunction and is therefore not
3 09-16876

 reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 

Appellant’s motion to strike portions of the answering brief is denied.

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                              3,286
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     439,156
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        62,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  631,835
<PP&E>                            100,359
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    744,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             487,051
<BONDS>                           103,565
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          124,981
<OTHER-SE>                         28,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      744,209
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  570,838
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     309,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  246,011
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  4,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    11,120
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                11,120
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       11,120
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 77/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 77 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6022 March 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 77

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6022 March 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) 2017/468 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2017 amending Decision ECB/2010/10 on non-compliance with statistical reporting requirements (ECB/2017/5) | 1 |
| | | GUIDELINES |
| | * | Guideline (EU) 2017/469 of the European Central Bank of 7 February 2017 amending Guideline ECB/2008/8 on data collection regarding the euro and the operation of the Currency Information System 2 (ECB/2017/7) | 4 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) 2017/468 of the European Central Bank of 26 January 2017 amending Decision ECB/2010/10 on non-compliance with statistical reporting requirements (ECB/2017/5)

1

GUIDELINES

*

Guideline (EU) 2017/469 of the European Central Bank of 7 February 2017 amending Guideline ECB/2008/8 on data collection regarding the euro and the operation of the Currency Information System 2 (ECB/2017/7)

4

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2555 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2555

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain parts and 
           accessories of measuring or checking instruments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain parts and 
           accessories of measuring or checking instruments.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PARTS AND ACCESSORIES OF MEASURING OR CHECKING 
              INSTRUMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.86 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to parts or accessories of 
instruments or apparatus for measuring or checking electrical 
quantities, such instruments or apparatus specially designed for 
telecommunications (provided for in subheading 9030.90.88) (but not 
including subassemblies containing one or more printed circuit 
assemblies for such instruments or apparatus (provided for in 
subheading 9030.90.88)) is amended by striking the date in the 
effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS UNAUDITED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          655778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   507965
<ALLOWANCES>                                     72978
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1826505
<PP&E>                                          657648
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1869709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2123056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (253347)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1869709
<SALES>                                         992651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                998484
<CGS>                                           864307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   903822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               39515
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  94662
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     94662
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.46
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT  32

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

In  connection with the Quarterly Report of CT Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for  the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven B. Solomon,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as  enacted  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.

/s/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
---------------------
Steven  B.  Solomon
Chief  Executive  Officer
August  23,  2004


/s/ RICHARD CONNELLY
--------------------
Richard  Connelly
Chief  Financial  Officer

August 23, 2004


                                       28
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period endingMarch 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony M. Marlon, M.D., 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: 

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
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 Annual Report of Viosolar Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending July 31, 2010, and as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick Walchuk, Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.





Date: March 17, 2011
By:
/s/ Rick WalchukName: Rick WalchukTitle: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Kevin JARVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CIRRUS LOGIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-50910.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

DECIDED: May 21, 2004.

James E. Polk, II, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kevin M. Sadler, Allison L. Bowers, Baker Botts, Austin, TX, for DefendantAppellee.

Before DAVIS, PRADO, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Jarvis appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him and in favor of his employer, Cirrus Logic, Inc., on his complaint of discrimination based on age and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The district court entered a well-reasoned opinion carefully analyzing the summary judgment evidence in conjunction with the operative law on the subject in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

We review the district court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment *de novo,*applying the same legal standard as the district court. *Wyatt v. Hunt Plywood Co.,*297 F.3d 405, 408 (5th Cir.2002)

As the district court noted, we also note that Jarvis admitted that he was qualified the same as or similar to the employees retained after the reduction in force (RIF). In order to succeed on a discrimination claim in a RIF situation, it is incumbent upon the terminated employee to prove that he was “clearly better qualified” than the retained employees. *Manning v. Chevron Chemical Co., LLC,*332 F.3d 874, 882, n. 4 (5th Cir.2003)(explaining that the “clearly better qualified” standard still applies after the Supreme Court’s decision in *Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,*
      *494
      *Inc.,*530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)).

After a careful review of the record, this court concludes that there was no genuine issue of material fact that would have entitled Jarvis to a trial on the merits. Therefore, for essentially the reasons cited in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

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.