alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41018 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICENTE ALEMAN-ALVAREZ,

DefendantAppellant.

------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-459-ALL

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

June 7, 2002

Before JOLLY, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Vicente Aleman-Alvarez (Aleman) has appealed his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to

possess more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute it. We AFFIRM.

Aleman contends that he is entitled to reversal because there was an inadequate factual basis

for his plea. S ee F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 11(f). He relies on his assertion that he did not know that he was

transporting more than 30 kilograms of cocaine, but thought that only a small quantity of marijuana-2-

wa s involved. Aleman asserts that A pprendi v. New Jersey
, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), has abrogated

Unit ed St at es v. Valencia-Gonzales , 172 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 1999), which states that the relevant

statutes mandate “a strict liability punishment based on which controlled substance, and how much

of it, is involved in the offense.”

Aleman’s contention is refuted by the transcript of his rearraignment hearing. In that

proceeding, he admi

t t ed under oath that he had agreed to transport the cocaine from Coahuila,

Mexico, to San Antonio, Texas, for renumeration. Thus, there was an ample factual basis even if it

is assumed that now a defendant in a drug-trafficking case must know what drug and how much of

it was involved. S ee United States v. Peters
, 283 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir.)(elements of drugconspiracy offense), petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Apr. 4, 2002) (No. 01-9578).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.2





Certification





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of AHL
Services, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:    August 14, 2002





Name:

/s/    HEINZ STUBBLEFIELDTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 746 

To repeal provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6 (legislative day, APRIL 5), 2011 

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. COBURN, Mr. 

CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENSIGN, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. 

KIRK, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MORAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

RISCH, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. 

WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dodd-Frank Repeal 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 Effective on the date of enactment of this Act, titles 

8 I through XV of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 746 IS

1 Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203) are re2 pealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by 

3 such titles are restored or revived as if such Act had not 

4 been enacted. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6199

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PABLO EMILIO RODRIGUEZ, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00160-H-1; 5:12-cv-00302-H)

Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 8, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pablo Emilio Rodriguez, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. MayParker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pablo Emilio Rodriguez, III seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). 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 debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rodriguez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# Official Journal C 271/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 271 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 498 November 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 271

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 498 November 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 271/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 271/2 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 271/3 | Commission opinion of 7 November 2006 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Georges Besse II facility on the Tricastin site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty | 8 |
| 2006/C 271/4 | Commission Opinion of 7 November 2006 concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty | 9 |
| 2006/C 271/5 | Information procedure — Technical rules (1) | 10 |
| 2006/C 271/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4420 — Crédit Agricole/Fiat Auto/FAFS) (1) | 16 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 271/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 271/2

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (1)

2

2006/C 271/3

Commission opinion of 7 November 2006 concerning the plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Georges Besse II facility on the Tricastin site in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

8

2006/C 271/4

Commission Opinion of 7 November 2006 concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Tricastin Nuclear Power Plant in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

9

2006/C 271/5

Information procedure — Technical rules (1)

10

2006/C 271/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4420 — Crédit Agricole/Fiat Auto/FAFS) (1)

16

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Joseph R. Tomkinson, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; and

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
|   | /s/ JOSEPH R. TOMKINSON |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Joseph R. Tomkinson     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                    |
|   | April 30, 2018     |

 

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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB REPORT OF OVM INTERNATIONAL HOLDING CORP FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>   RENMINBI YUAN
       

<S>                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            8.30
<CASH>                                   11,301
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           119,888
<ALLOWANCES>                              6,771
<INVENTORY>                              41,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        255,676
<PP&E>                                   14,538
<DEPRECIATION>                            4,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          279,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   170,257
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     10
<OTHER-SE>                               73,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            279,281
<SALES>                                 130,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        136,859
<CGS>                                    78,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           114,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          3,875
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        5,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          21,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      21,870
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             14,778
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                              1.23

        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This Schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Pen Interconnect,  Inc. September 30, 1997 financial statements and is
          qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001000266
<NAME>                        Pen Interconnect Inc

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                         272,148
<SECURITIES>                                   400,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,230,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (137,058)
<INVENTORY>                                    3,355,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,909,396
<PP&E>                                         3,690,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,303,063)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,906,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,843,618
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          40,729
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7,104,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,906,984
<SALES>                                        18,238,460
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,238,460
<CGS>                                          18,009,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,152,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               69,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             612,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,845,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,109,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,735,483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,735,483)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.54
        


</TABLE>
# C_2020054EN.01003301.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 26 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 26 November 2019 — LJ v INSS (Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social)

(Case C-861/19)

(2020/C 54/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 26 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LJ

Defendant: INSS (Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social)

Questions referred

| 1. | Can the maternity supplement provided for in Article 60 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), the consolidated version of which was approved by Real Decreto Legislativo 8/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015), be considered a positive measure or action designed to achieve substantive equality between women and men which is permissible under Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the maternity supplement provided for in Article 60 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), the consolidated version of which was approved by Real Decreto Legislativo 8/2015 (Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015), be considered a positive measure or action designed to achieve substantive equality between women and men which is permissible under Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, is the time limit established by the sole final provision of Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015 that restricts the supplement to pensions arising from 1 January 2016 onwards contrary to the principle of proportionality which must be satisfied by all positive action? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, is the time limit established by the sole final provision of Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015 that restricts the supplement to pensions arising from 1 January 2016 onwards contrary to the principle of proportionality which must be satisfied by all positive action?

---
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VONDELISE JONES, 

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent

______________________

2023-1703

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0831-20-0072-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

Case: 23-1703 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2024
2 JONES V. MSPB

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

March 22, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 22, 2024

Case: 23-1703 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2024
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Dennis C. Poulsen, Chief Executive Officer of Rose Hills Company (the Company), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and                 
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (b) | the information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, which this certification accompanies, fairly
presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/ DENNIS C. POULSEN                                  | 
|------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                                                       | 
|Dennis C. Poulsen Chief Executive Officer May 12, 2003 | 

The foregoing certification accompanied the Form 10-Q filing pursuant to18 U.S.C. §
1350.  It is being reproduced herein for information only.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.  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 or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with this Quarterly Report of Premier Holding Corp.(the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jasmine Gregory, the Chief Financial 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 to my knowledge:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending  September 30, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







|Date:  September 9, 2010 | Jasmine Gregory
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ | ---------------------------------------
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




December 10, 2009




Comerica Bank

Attn: William B. Murdock

500 Woodward Avenue

9th Floor

Detroit, MI. 48226





		
	Re: 	Termination Notice - $400.0 Million Smith International, Inc and M-I LLC

Revolving Credit Facility





Dear William,



We refer to the Credit Agreement dated May 5, 2005 between Smith International, Inc. and M-I LLC as
Borrower(s), and Comerica Bank as Administrative Agent for the Lenders. Please be advised that the
Borrower(s) request termination of the Revolving Credit Facilities in their entirety, effective
December 10, 2009.



Feel free to contact me if you have any questions on the above.




/s/ William Restrepo                                        

William Restrepo

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

JESSICA RUBIO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 10-262 (RWR)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Jessica Rubio filed a two-count complaint under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the District of Columbia and Corrections

Corporation of America (“CCA”), for purported violations of her

constitutional rights that occurred while Rubio was incarcerated

on separate occasions in 2008 and 2009. (Compl. ¶ 6.) On

March 16, 2010, CCA moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) to dismiss Count II of the complaint as it applied to

CCA. Rubio filed no opposition. Instead, on March 23, 2010,

Rubio filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that

adds one count of false imprisonment. The District of Columbia

filed no opposition to Rubio’s motion. However, CCA opposed

Rubio’s motion, arguing that Rubio’s motion was untimely, and

that the proposed new count would be futile because CCA could not

be held liable under that count. 

Count III of Rubio’s amended complaint does not name CCA and

seeks to hold liable only the District of Columbia. Moreover,
-2-

Rubio was entitled to amend her complaint as a matter of course

within 21 days after CCA filed its motion to dismiss. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Thus, Rubio’s motion was neither untimely

nor even necessary, and will be granted. 

Count II of the amended complaint is identical to Count II

of the original complaint, and CCA’s motion to dismiss will be

treated as one to dismiss Count II of the amended complaint. 

Since Rubio filed no opposition, CCA’s motion will be deemed

conceded, and will be granted. See Local Civil Rule 7(b); Fox v.

Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

(affirming a district court’s dismissal of a complaint where the

plaintiff failed to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(b)); see also

Cooper v. Farmers New Century Ins. Co., 607 F. Supp. 2d 175, 180

(D.D.C. 2009) (granting motion to dismiss as conceded based on

the plaintiff’s failure to respond to arguments raised in the

motion); Bonaccorsy v. Dist. of Columbia, 685 F. Supp. 2d 18, 24

(D.D.C. 2010) (citing CSX Transp., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins.,

Co., 82 F.3d 478, 482-83 (D.C. Cir. 1986) and Felter v. Salazar,

679 F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 n.2 (D.D.C. 2010)). Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Rubio’s motion [6] for leave to file an amended

complaint be, and hereby is, GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk file the amended complaint [#6-1]. 

It is further
-3-

ORDERED that CCA’s motion [2] to dismiss Count II as it

applies to CCA be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Count II of the

amended complaint is dismissed as it applies to CCA.

SIGNED this 29th day of November, 2010.

 /s/ 

RICHARD W. ROBERTS

United States District Judge