alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-11-00033-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KEN AMBROSE, § APPEAL FROM THE 115TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

CYNTHIA RIDGEWAY, MADALINE

BARBER AND BLANTON DAWSON,

APPELLEES § UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. Because Appellant has 

met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), the motion is granted, 

and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion delivered February 18, 2011.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1474 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1474

To designate certain functions performed at flight service stations of 
    the Federal Aviation Administration as inherently governmental 
                   functions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2005

    Mr. Sanders (for himself, Mr. LoBiondo, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Solis, Mr. Payne, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. 
 Lantos, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Brown of Ohio, 
Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Michaud, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
  Clay, Ms. Herseth, Mr. Stark, Mr. Towns, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Ginny 
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Slaughter, 
 Mr. Emanuel, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. Bishop of New York) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate certain functions performed at flight service stations of 
    the Federal Aviation Administration as inherently governmental 
                   functions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``The Federal Aviation Safety Security 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL DETERMINATION.

    For purposes of section 2(a) of the Federal Inventory Activities 
Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2382), the functions performed by air traffic 
control specialists at flight service stations operated by the Federal 
Aviation Administration are inherently governmental functions and must 
be performed by Federal employees.

SEC. 3. ACTIONS VOIDED.

    Any action taken pursuant to section 2(a) of the Federal Inventory 
Activities Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2382), or any other law or legal 
authority with respect to functions performed by air traffic control 
specialists at flight service stations operated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration is null and void.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11568]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board 1995 Summer Study Task Force on Technology 
Investments for 21st Century Military Superiority, Industrial Base 
Team; Notice of Meetings

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board 1995 Summer Study Task Force on 
Technology Investments for 21st Century Military Superiority, 
Industrial Base Team will meet in closed session on May 19, 1995 at 
Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia. In 
order for the Task Force to obtain time sensitive classified briefings, 
critical to the understanding of the issues, this meeting is scheduled 
on short notice.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting the Task 
Force will focus on those R&D investments that must be made now so as 
to assure a technology base in the year 2000 capable of providing U.S. 
military superiority in the 21st century.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1988)), it has 
been determined that this DSB Task Force meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(c)(1) (1988), and that accordingly this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 5, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-11568 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Manuel Jose LOZANO, petitioner, v. Diana Lucia Montoya ALVAREZ.

No. 12-820.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4058

TONY OSIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-94-40-V)

Submitted: December 12, 1996

Decided: December 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

George V. Laughrun, II, GOODMAN, CARR, NIXON, LAUGHRUN & LEVINE, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Tony Osias appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court

his plea of guilty to involvement in a crack cocaine conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). We affirm.

In his plea agreement Osias waived his right to appeal except for

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. This waiver was discussed at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy

and is therefore valid and fully enforceable. United States v.

Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995). Of the claims

Osias raised on appeal, only one is reviewable under the waiver provision. Osias alludes to prosecutorial misconduct in his claim that the

trial court erred in not applying the safety valve provision of the

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5C1.2

(Nov. 1994). Osias claims that the prosecutor breached a stipulation

in the plea agreement that there would be no enhancements to the

base offense level and that this stipulation precluded the Government

from arguing that Osias was a "leader/organizer" in the conspiracy for

the purpose of denying him the benefit of § 5C1.2. This claim is without merit because there was no stipulation but rather an agreement to

not recommend further enhancements. Further, § 5C1.2 does not

involve enhancements and the Government did not argue for any

enhancements. As for Osias's other claims, he has waived the right

to appeal. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d at 1146. Accordingly, we deny

Osias's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and reply brief and

the Government's motion to file a response, and we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
Exhibit
23




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







The Board
of Directors


Sound
Financial, Inc.





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-156089) dated December 12, 2008 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Sound
Financial, Inc. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated March 30, 2009,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Sound Financial, Inc. and
Subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated
statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the two-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report is included in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sound Financial, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2008.





/s/ Moss
Adams LLP





Everett,
Washington


March 30,
2009
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.6


                   [Insituform Technologies, Inc. Letterhead]



March 1, 2004



Mr. Thomas S. Rooney, Jr.
40 Overhills
Ladue, MO  63124

Dear Tom:

This letter will confirm the following amendment to the first paragraph of
Section 6 of your March 7, 2003 employment letter with us: the words "during
your first twenty-four months' of employment" are hereby deleted.

If the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding and agreement, please
sign this letter where indicated below and return it to me. The amendment to
your employment letter as set forth herein will be effective upon receipt of
your acknowledgment.

Sincerely,

INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



By: /s/ Stephen P. Cortinovis
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stephen P. Cortinovis
    Chair, Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:



/s/ Thomas S. Rooney, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
Thomas S. Rooney, Jr.

Date:  March 1, 2004
#### MOEST, Appellant v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 20, 1907.)

Action by Mary Moest against the Continental Casualty Company.

No opinion. Judgment (55 Misc. Rep. 128, 104 N. Y. Supp. 553) affirmed with costs.
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of Long Beach Acceptance Corp.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to
Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2007 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of Long Beach Acceptance Auto Receivables Trust
2007-A (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by Long Beach Acceptance Corp., and Long Beach Acceptance Receivables Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that I
am the Executive Vice President, Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from March 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, and
its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge,
there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                            |  |                           |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | 
|--------------------------- |  | ------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | 
|Long Beach Acceptance Corp. |  |                           |  |  |  | 
|                            |  |                           |  |  | 
|By:                         |  | /s/ James Fehleison       |  |  |  |  |  | Dated: March 31, 2008 |  | 
|                            |  | James Fehleison           |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | 
|                            |  | Executive Vice President, |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | 
|                            |  | Controller                |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |
Derek Albert CAPOZZI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6807.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-15

)

BEAU A. ELDRIDGE )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on June 3, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel

for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 3rd day of June 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12431]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-293-000]


Northern Natural Gas Co; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 16, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 12, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, 
proposed to be effective May 12, 1995:

Second Revised Sheet No. 286
Second Revised Sheet No. 287
First Revised Sheet No. 288

    Northern is filing revised tariff sheets to comply with the 
Commission's Final Rule on Order No. 577. ``Release of Firm Capacity on 
Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline'', issued on March 29, 1995 in Docket 
No. RM95-5-000.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers, interested State Commissions and other 
parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a petition to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, 
D.C., 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
petitions or protests must be filed on or before May 23, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12431 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32**

August 14, 2007

Via EDGAR

Securities andExchange CommissionJudiciary Plaza450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:      Certification pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Mesa Offshore Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, notin its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)         The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust as of the dates and for theperiods presented.

Theabove certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not beingfiled as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
|          | JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,                      |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for Mesa Offshore Trust                 |
|     | /s/ MIKE ULRICH                            |
|     | Mike Ulrich                                     |
| * * | *Vice President and Trust Officer*              |
| * * | ***The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.,*** |
| * * | ***as attorney-in-fact for the Trustee***       |

 

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                         252,796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,053,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                   663,965
<INVENTORY>                                 19,745,756
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,353,798
<PP&E>                                       8,209,516
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,041,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,300,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,667,864
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       106,706
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,726,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,300,065
<SALES>                                     33,178,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,293,763
<CGS>                                       26,063,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,063,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,335,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               118,308
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             543,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233,685
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            200,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   200,335
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.5

                       Annual Administrator's Certificate


Standard & Poor's Ratings Services
55 Water Street
New York, New York  10041
Attention:  Asset-Backed Surveillance Group

Fitch Ratings
One State Street Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Attention:  Structured Finance

Moody's Investors Service Inc.
99 Church Street
New York, New York  10007
Attention:  Structured Finance

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
Attn:  Peter Becker
280 Park Avenue
New York, New York  10017

SLC Student Loan Trust - I
c/o Wilmington Trust Company
Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001
Attention:  Corporate Trust Administration

As an officer of The Student Loan Corporation, the Administrator of SLC Student
Loan Trust-I (the "Administrator") pursuant to a certain Administration
Agreement dated as of March 27, 2002 between the SLC Student Loan Trust-I and
The Student Loan Corporation (the "Administration Agreement"), I hereby certify
that:

(a)   a review of the activities of the Administrator during the preceding
      calendar year and of its performance under the Administration Agreement
      has been made under my supervision, and

(b)   to the best of my knowledge, based on such a review, the Administrator has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Administration Agreement
      throughout the period ended December 31, 2002, and there have been no
      known defaults in the fulfillment of such obligations.


/s/ Michael J. Reardon                                March 26, 2004
---------------------------------                     -----------------
Michael J. Reardon                                    Date
Acting Chief Financial Officer
The Student Loan Corporation, as Administrator