alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7463** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. FRAZIER DERRING , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad , Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr - 00179

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 ; 3:14

- cv - 00014

- RJC )

Submitted : February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Frazier Derring , Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Joseph Enright , William Michael Miller , Cortney Randall , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frazier Derring seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (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 de batable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Derring has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss th e appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 106th District Court of Garza County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on December 8,

2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of A.J.H. aka A.H., M.R.H. aka M.H., i.e., Children

Case Number: 07-14-00290-CV Trial Court Number: 13-03-06755

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 8, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on June 9, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
Exhibit 32.2

             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 on Form 10-QSB of Universal
Communication Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Curtis Orgil, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, 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/ Curtis Orgil
Dated: August 13, 2003                    ----------------------------
                                          Curtis Orgil
                                          Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Candente Resource Corp. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









|Date:  August 23, 2004 | Signed:  /s/ Peter de Visser
Peter de Visser
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                                     
|                       |                                                                     
|                       |                                                                     
|                       |                                                                     
|                       |
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00387-CR

RAFID AHMED GHENI OBAIDA,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1388085D)

October 25, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST

Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust

c/o Capital One Bank (USA), National Association

140 East Shore Drive

Room 1071-B

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015
(the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of March 16, 2006, by and between Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and the Servicer (the
Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 29th day of March 2016.



| |  |                                   |  |                         |  | 
| |  | --------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
| |  | CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION |  |                        
| |  |                                   | 
| |  | By:                               |  | /s/ Colin Ruh           |  | 
| |  | Name:                             |  | Colin Ruh               |  | 
| |  | Title:                            |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
Keyon L. RICHARDSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1038

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JUNE 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 11

2001 Priority Setting - National Energy Savings

Product Energy

Savings

Range

(quads) 2004-

2030

Likely

Savings

ASHRAE

Savings

Distribution Transformers 0.39-10.7 6.3

3(p Central AC/HP' <65 kBtu 1.3-4.1 1.95 0

Small Electric Motors 0.8-4.5 1.

Residential Furnaces & Boilers 0.6-3.7 0.6

Package Terminal AC/HP 0.55-0.78 0.56 0.11

Split 3cp Central AC/HP 65 - 240 kBtu 0.50-4.71 0.46 2.23

Dishwashers -0.8 0.4

Gas Pool Heaters 0.2-0.9 0.4

Gas-fired Boilers 0.12-0.60 0.28 0.06

HID Lamps 0.11-0.22 0.15

Tameless Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters 0.14-0.59 0.10 0

'ASHRAE 90.1-1999 did not increase efficiency of this product

EE-PS-96-001 COMMENT 62

YEAR 2001 PRIORITY SETTING COMMENT 11 

2001 Priority Setting - National Energy Savings 

Product Energy Likely ASHRAE 

Savings Savings Savings 

Range 

(quads) 2004-

2030 

Distribution Transformers 0.39-10.7 6.3 

3<p Central AC/HP' <65 kBtu 1.3-4.1 1.95 0 

Small Electric Motors 0.8-4.5 1. 

Residential Furnaces & Boilers 0.6-3.7 0.6 

Package Terminal AC/HP 0.55-0.78 0.56 0.11 

Split 3<p Central AC/HP 65 - 240 kBtu 0.50-4.71 0.46 2.23 

Dishwashers -0.8 0.4 

Gas Pool Heaters 0.2-0.9 0.4 

Gas-fired Boilers 0.12-0.60 0.28 0.06 

HID Lamps 0.11-0.22 0.15 

Tankless Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters 0.14-0.59 0.10 0 

1 ASHRAE 90.1-1999 did not increase efficiency of this product
# C_2020398EN.01000201.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9673 — Columbia Threadneedle Investments/Brittany Ferries/Condor)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 398/02)

On 17 February 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9673. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9673. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e S i dn eyH . S t ei n, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C ourtf orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OS C ARB E C E R R A; J UL I AN A B R A H A M, P l ai n t i ffs - A p p el l an t s, v. E NT E R P R I S E R E NT - A- C AR CO M PA N Y O F LO S A N G ELES, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 56840 D. C . No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 6 0 6 - J AH P OR ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . H ous t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 4, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: T R O T T and W . F L E T C H E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and S T E IN , D i stri ctJudg e. ** A p p e lla n ts , O s c a rB e c e rr aa n dJ u lia n A b r a h a m , ap p e a l th e d is m is s a l o f th e ir 

# FI LED JU N 18 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c o m p la in t p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f irm . T he vi abi l i ty of B ec erra ’ s and A braham ’ s c as e depends ent i re l y on w hether or no tM exi can l aw proh i bi t s M exi can n at i on al s f rom dri vi ng an A m er i can rent al c a ri nt o M e xi c o. A l though the di s tr i c tc ourtga ve the m f ouropportuni t i e s - - i n the f o rm o f a m e n d e dc o m p la in ts - - a d e q u a te lyto a lle g e a n dto d e m o n s tr a te th e v iab ility o f th i s n ecessary legal pro p o si t i o n , th ey fai l ed t o d o so . A s su ch , A p p el l an t s’ causes of ac t i on thatar e dependent up on the forei gn l aw vi ol at i on fa i l t o st at e a c l a i m tha tc r os s e s “ the l i ne f r om c onc e i vabl e t o pl aus i bl e . ” A s hc r of tv. I qba l , 556 U .S . 6 6 2 , 6 8 0 ( 2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . A p p e lla n ts a ls o f

a il to s ta te ac la im r e g a r d in g th e in s u r a n c e p o lic y . A ssu m i n g arg u en d o th atE n t erp ri se w as A p p el l an t s’ i n su ran ce ag en t , E n t erp ri se w as no tnegl i gentfor f

ai l i ng t o p rocure i nsurance f or A pp el l ant s thatw ou l d cov er le g a l is s u e s in M e x ic o b a s e du p o n A p p e lla n ts ’ r e q u e s t f o rin s u r a n c e th a t w o u ld “c o v e re v e ry th in g in M e x ic o .” S e e J o n e s v . G r e w e , 2 3 4 C a l. Rp tr . 7 1 7 , 7 2 1 ( C a l. C t . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ). E n t erp ri se d i dn o tco n ceal o r m i srep resen tth e t erm s o f th e p o l i cy, w hi c h w e r e w r i tt e n i n both S pa ni s h a nd E ngl i s h. F i na l l y , E nt e rpr i s e di d nott a ke a n ya c tio n th a t f

ru s tr a te dA p p e lla n ts ’ r ig h ts u n d e rth e p o lic y . A F F I R M E D .
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41272

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO SANCHEZ-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-341-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Sanchez-Rivera pleaded guilty to one charge of

attempted illegal reentry into the United States and was

sentenced to serve 70 months in prison and a three-year term of

supervised release. Sanchez-Rivera argues that the district

court erred by concluding that his prior conviction for burglary

of a habitation constituted a crime of violence and by assessing

a 16-level adjustment for this conviction. This argument is, as 

Sanchez-Rivera concedes, foreclosed. See United States v.

Valdez-Maltos, 443 F.3d 910, 911 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,
No. 05-41272

-2-

2006 WL 2094539 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2006) (No. 06-5473); United States

v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006).

Sanchez-Rivera also challenges the constitutionality of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated

felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of

the offense that must be found by a jury in light of Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Sanchez-Rivera’s constitutional

challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Sanchez-Rivera contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of

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

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). SanchezRivera properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light

of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here

to preserve it for further review.

Sanchez-Rivera has shown no error in connection with his

conviction or sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
J.H., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2020389EN.01000101.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9584 — Hutchinson/PFW Aerospace)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 389/01)

On 20 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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

I, Joseph T. Crowley, the Chief Financial Officer ofWillow Financial Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify that the Company’sAmended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year endedJune 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that as of the date of this statement, the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all in material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

The purpose ofthis statement is to solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
| Date: October 16, 2007 | /s/ JOSEPH  T. CROWLEY    |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
|                   | Joseph T. Crowley         |
|                   | *Chief Financial Officer* |

 

*A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to WillowFinancial Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Willow FinancialBancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.*

----
BioReliance Study No. : AA40NY. 130.BTL 4 SPONSOR’S QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Listed below are the dates that this study was inspected by the Quality Assurance Unit of Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, New Jersey, and the dates that findings were reported to the Study Director and Management. This report reflects the raw data as far as can be reasonably established.

Type of Inspection Date(s) of Inspection Reported to Study Director and Management

General Facility Inspection 8 Nov 00 11 Nov 00 a

GLP Protocol Review 24, 29 Aug 01 29 Aug 01

Exposure (Charcoal Tube Sampling) 14 Dec 01 14 Dec 01

Positive Dose Control Preparation and Dose
Administration 19 Dec 01 20 Dec 01

Genotoxicity Necropsy 20 Dec 01 20 Dec 01

Sister Chromatid Exchange (SCE) Assay Report 12, 13 Jun 02 18 Jun 02

Fran Jannone, B.A., RQAP-GLP Date Quality Assurance Group Leader

a Date reported to Testing Facility ManagementBioReliance Study No. : AA40NY. 130.BTL 4 SPONSOR’S QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Listed below are the dates that this study was inspected by the Quality Assurance Unit of Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, New Jersey, and the dates that findings were reported to the Study Director and Management. This report reflects the raw data as far as can be reasonably established.

Type of Inspection Date(s) of Inspection Reported to Study Director and Management

General Facility Inspection 8 Nov 00 11 Nov 00 a

GLP Protocol Review 24, 29 Aug 01 29 Aug 01

Exposure (Charcoal Tube Sampling) 14 Dec 01 14 Dec 01

Positive Dose Control Preparation and Dose
Administration 19 Dec 01 20 Dec 01

Genotoxicity Necropsy 20 Dec 01 20 Dec 01

Sister Chromatid Exchange (SCE) Assay Report 12, 13 Jun 02 18 Jun 02

Fran Jannone, B.A., RQAP-GLP Date Quality Assurance Group Leader

a Date reported to Testing Facility Management5

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Listed below are the dates that this study was inspected by the Quality Assurance Unit of Huntingdon Life Sciences, East Millstone, New Jersey, and the dates that findings were reported to the Study Director and Management. This report reflects the raw data as far as can be reasonably established.

Type of Inspection Date(s) of Inspection Reported to Study Director and Management

GLP Protocol Review 24, 29 Aug 01 29 Aug 01

Exposure, Monitoring and Equipment Records 23 Oct 01 23 Oct 01

GC Characterization 09 Nov 01 09 Nov 01

GFAP Necropsy 23 Jan 02 23 Jan 02

GFAP Report 12, 13 Jun 02 18 Jan 02

Fran Jannone, B.A., RQAP-GLP Date Quality Assurance Group Leader