alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3695-3696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1147]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc.; Special Committee 180 Eighth Meeting; Design 
Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic Hardware

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix I), notice is hereby given for Special 
Committee 180 meeting to be held March 21-23, 1995, starting at 8:30 
a.m. on the first day and 8:00 a.m. on subsequent days. The meeting 
will be held at EUROCAE, 17 rue Hamelin, Paris, France. [[Page 3696]] 
    Agenda will be as follows: (1) Chairman's introductory remarks; (2) 
Review and approval of meeting agenda; (3) Approve summary of joint 
meeting held December 13-15, 1994; (4) Leadership Team meeting report; 
(5) Consensus items; (6) Review action items; (7) Review issue logs; 
(8) Joint team status reports; (9) Joint team assignments and 
objectives; (10) Adjourn to joint team sessions; (11) Joint team 
reports; (12) Other business; (13) Establish agenda for next meeting; 
(14) Date and place of next meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the Chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C. 20036; 
(202) 833-9339. Any member of the public may present a written 
statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 5, 1995.
David W. Ford,
Designated Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-1147 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

CHAPEL RIDGE INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-146

)

PETLAND LEASEHOLDING COMPANY, ) 

INC., an Ohio corporation; THE UNKNOWN )

OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND )

SHAREHOLDERS OF PETLAND LEASING )

COMPANY, INC.; and PETLAND, INC., an )

Ohio corporation; )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2, 7.) Along with Petland

Leaseholding Company, Inc. (“PLC”), and Petland, Inc., PLC’s unknown officers, directors, and

shareholders are also Defendants in this case. “But because the existence of diversity

jurisdiction cannot be determined without knowledge of every defendant’s place of citizenship,

‘John Doe’ defendants are not permitted in federal diversity suits.” Howell ex rel. Goerdt v.

Tribune Entm’t Co., 106 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Defendants appear to

be aware of this, stating in their Amended Notice of Removal that “PLC represents to the Court

that none of its officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of the State of Indiana.” (Am.

Notice of Removal ¶ 4(d).) 

Defendants’ Amended Notice of Removal, however, is inadequate because Plaintiff

Chapel Ridge Investments, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, is a citizen of

1

case 1:13-cv-00146-PPS-RBC document 19 filed 06/03/13 page 1 of 2
California, not Indiana, as its sole member, Johann Lippert, is a California citizen. (Am. Notice

of Removal ¶ 6(a)(ii)); see Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he

citizenship of an LLC for purposes of . . . diversity jurisdiction is the citizenship of its

members.”). As such, whether any of PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of

Indiana is irrelevant to the jurisdictional analysis. Instead, the Court must be advised of whether

any of them are California citizens.

Consequently, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing a Second

Amended Notice of Removal on or before June 17, 2013, informing the Court of whether any of

PLC’s officers, directors, or shareholders are citizens of California. 

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 3rd day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00146-PPS-RBC document 19 filed 06/03/13 page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:12-CR-4-TLS

)

FRANCISCO GARCIA-HERNANDEZ )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 21] filed on April 2, 2012. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 21] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty to the offense charged in Count 10 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is

adjudged guilty of such offense. 

Any request for a sentence involving a departure under the United States Sentencing

Guidelines, or for a variance above or below a Guidelines sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

with the exception of matters raised pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines, shall be communicated to

the probation officer and opposing counsel, in writing, within fourteen (14) days following initial

disclosure of the pre-sentence report. Any sentencing memorandum addressing these or any other

issues, including requests for a departure based on § 5K1.1, shall be filed with the Court no later

than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing. The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence

scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on April 18, 2012. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26731-26732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12192]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Dental Research; Notice of Meeting of NIDR 
Board of Scientific Counselors

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Dental 
Research (NIDR), on June 7-9, 1995, in the Natcher Building, Conference 
Room A, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. The meeting 
will be open to the public from 8:55 a.m. to recess on June 8 and from 
[[Page 26732]] 9:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on June 9 for program and poster 
presentations. Attendance by the public will be limited to space 
available.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in sec. 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5, U.S.C. and sec. 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, the meeting will be 
closed to the public from 6:00 p.m. until recess on June 7 and from 
12:30 p.m. until adjournment on June 9 for the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of individual programs and projects conducted by the NIDR, 
including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, 
the competence of individual investigators, and similar items, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Mr. Brent Jaquet, Director, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 
Communications, NIDR, NIH, Building 31, Room 2C34, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892 (telephone: (301) 496-6705) will provide summary of the meeting, 
roster of committee members and substantive program information. 
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact the Executive Secretary listed above in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: May 11, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-12192 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 amended Annual Report of Monarch Investment Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge:

 

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/Philip Bloom________________________

Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer

 

/s/David Miller_________________________

President and Principal Executive Officer

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the

Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 51171 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

− Appellee ,

v ersus
JAMES LEE PLESKAC , Defendant

− Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 3:07

- CR

- 1765

- 1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

James Pleskac appeals his 30

- month sentence imposed upon revocation

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR CUIT R ULE 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 5 TH C IR CUIT R ULE 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 26, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-51171 Document: 00515468968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/26/2020No. 19

- 51171

2 of supervised rel ease. He maintains that it is an illegal sentence because it
exceeds the statutory maximum , and he requests that this court either modify the order or vacate and remand for resentencing

. The g overnment agrees that the sentence exceeds the statutory maxim um and should be corrected.
A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is illegal. United States
v. Vera , 542 F.3d 457, 459 (5th Cir. 2008). We review de novo revocation sen

tences that are alleged to exceed the statutory maximum notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to preserve the issue for appellate review. United States v. Oswalt , 771 F.3d 849, 850 (5th Cir. 2014 ) ; see Vera , 542 F.3d at 459. Pleskac’s underlying offens e of transporting aliens for private financial gain was punishable by imprisonment of not more than 10 years , se e 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (B)(i) , which is a Class C felony , see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). The authorized imprisonment after revoking super vised release for a Class C felony is not more than two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)

. Section 7B1.4( b )(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines instructs that “ [ w ] here the statutorily authorized maximum term of imprisonment . . . is less than the minimum of the applicable range, the statutorily authorized maximum term shall be substituted for the applicable range.” U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4( b )(1).

The district court nevertheless determined that the applicable policy guide lines range was 30 to 37 months and imposed a se ntence within that

range

. T he court therefore erred in calculating the range and in imposing a
sentence that exceeds the maximum

. See United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 90

− 93 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that in imposing a revoca tion sentence the court is directed to consider, inter alia , the nonbinding policy statements found in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines). Accordingly, the sentence imposed

upon revocation is VACATED and REMANDED for resentencing. Case: 19-51171 Document: 00515468968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/26/2020
EX-34.5
(logo) Grant Thornton

Accountants and Business Advisors


REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc.


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that Land America Tax and Flood Services, Inc. (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential and
commercial mortgage backed securities for which the Company served as
third-party property tax payment provider on the underlying collateral (the
"Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria
1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(x)
and 1122(d)(4)(xiii)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to
the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management
is responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the
Platform based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Land America Tax and Flood Services,
Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Diego, CA
February 6, 2008


12340 El Camino Real Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92130 T 858.704.8000 F 858.704.8099
W www.grantthornton.com

Grant Thornton LLP
US Member of Grant Thornton International
MOSCOW, IDAHO, APRIL 10, 2024, AT 8:50 A.M.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

STATE OF IDAHO,

 Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. 

DESIREE ELAINE KARST,

 Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 50130-2022

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Barry McHugh, District Judge. 

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. 

Desiree Elaine Karst appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to reimburse various 

fees she paid as a result of her now-invalidated conviction. 

Karst entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal for possession of 

methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Karst argued that the district 

court erred in denying Karst’s motion to suppress drug and paraphernalia evidence. The Idaho 

Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Karst's motion to suppress. On remand, 

Karst’s charges were dismissed. 

Karst filed a motion to reimburse various fees and charges she was ordered to pay as a 

result of her now-invalidated conviction. The district court denied the motion for lack of 

jurisdiction. On appeal, Karst argues that the district court has personal and subject matter 

jurisdiction to consider her motion and any caselaw to the contrary should be overruled. 

Additionally, Karst argues that ordering reimbursement remedies a continuing violation of her due 

process rights.
Larry Eugene COLLINS, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 13-6613.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Robert G. Gargus, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff upon request.



This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.



/s/    ROBERT G. GARGUSRobert G. Gargus, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




Dated: February 9, 2006
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135111 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135111 COA: 279100 Oakland CC: 2005-206000-FC DAVID LEE CHAMBLESS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0123 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.

January 30, 2008

Clerk
Presidential Documents

25839

Federal Register

Vol. 60, No. 93

Monday, May 15, 1995

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 6797 of May 11, 1995

Mother’s Day, 1995

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Each year, Americans pause on the second Sunday of May to celebrate

the gift of motherhood. Mother’s Day reminds all of us to honor our mothers

and to show them our love and appreciation—on this day and throughout

the year. Whether we embrace our mothers in person or hold fast to a

loving memory, the strength of their spirit and the blessing of their compassion stay with us for a lifetime.

Americans’ vitality as a people flows from the health of our families. The

heart and soul of our national life, mothers rise each day to take on myriad

tasks, from driving a carpool to directing a city council. They are an anchor

to generations past and a bridge to the world of the future. Meeting the

challenge of motherhood is one of society’s greatest responsibilities, and

those who do this work every day do a service to all humanity.

Whether biological, foster, or adoptive, mothers have a unique ability to

caution and care for their children and to instill in them the values of

honesty, respect, and faith. As role models for their children, mothers show

by example the infinite possibilities of life.

No matter our age, our mothers are ready to understand, to love, and to

listen. We best observe this special day by living our lives to reflect the

love they have given us and by teaching our children to hope for a brighter

tomorrow.

To honor all mothers and their special place in our hearts, the Congress,

by a joint resolution approved May 8, 1914 (38 Stat. 770), has designated

the second Sunday in May each year as ‘‘Mother’s Day’’ and requested

the President to call for its appropriate observance.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, do hereby proclaim Sunday, May 14, 1995, as ‘‘Mother’s Day.’’

I urge all Americans to consider how much mothers have contributed to

the well-being of our Nation. I call upon our citizens to observe this day

with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eleventh day

of May, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-five, and

of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 95–12038

Filed 5–11–95; 3:13 pm]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and nineteenth.

œ–
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DONNA GAIL KERSEY

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

S tate

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00037

- CR

Appeal from the

20 7 th District Court

of Comal County, Texas

(TC# CR2018

- 325 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’ s fourth motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until September 2 , 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPEL LANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Susan Schoon, the Appel l ant ’ s attorney, prepare the

Appell ant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Septemb er 2 , 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 st day of September 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.