alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BUI AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY 

Written by CDR Mark E. Hammond

Often during boarding's involving boating under the influence (BUI), 

mariners are turned over to local law enforcement authorities and 

subsequently prosecuted under state law for intoxicated operation of 

a vessel. Hearing Officers routinely hear from these mariners 

because they have also received a notice of civil penalty action from a 

Coast Guard Hearing Officer for BUI under Title 46 United States 

Code (U.S.C.) Section 2302(c). In their responses, the mariners claim 

the civil penalty action constitutes “double jeopardy” because they 

are being prosecuted by the state for the same incident. 

The Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution prohibits that a 

person be put twice in “jeopardy of life and limb” for the same 

offense. Double jeopardy is a concept that applies to criminal 

proceedings. Where the conduct violates the laws of the nation and 

an individual state, a person may be “prosecuted” and punished at 

both the national and state level. This is because the laws are 

considered different because they arise from separate sovereigns. 

The Coast Guard enforces federal regulations by imposing civil 

penalties (described in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

1.07), This process is an informal, administrative process governed 

by basic due process standards found in administrative law. This 

process is separate and distinct from state judicial proceedings. 

Where there is an overlap of jurisdiction between federal, state and 

local law enforcement agencies, each agency may proceed with 

enforcement actions within the bounds of their jurisdiction and 

authority. Mariners who receive a civil penalty notice for BUI from a 

Hearing Officer are not being "tried" for a "crime" and as such there 

is no jeopardy of life or limb. Additionally the civil penalty action 

arises from violation of federal law separate and apart from any 

state prosecution for the same conduct under state law. As such, the 
Coast Guard civil penalty action does not create double jeopardy for 

the mariner.

Additionally, Hearing Officers often receive responses from mariners 

demanding that the Hearing Officer dismiss the violation and civil 

penalty action because their case was dismissed in state civil court 

or they were found guilty in state civil court and have already paid a 

significant fine. Hearing Officers are not bound by the findings of 

state proceedings in determining whether a violation of federal 

regulations did or did not occur. Hearing Officers may however, 

consider penalties and punishment imposed by a state as factors in 

mitigation.
Exhibit 99.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure
Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy P. McGurran, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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 result of operations of the Company.





|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    TIMOTHY P.
MCGURRAN                                            
|                                                                      
|Timothy P. McGurran President and Chief Operating Officer May 15, 2003
Exhibit 8
  The following list shows all of the subsidiaries of Enodis plc, as at December 13, 2004, except for inactive subsidiaries, those used only as vehicles to hold subsidiaries and those which, in the aggregate, are not significant.
 
 **Significant Subsidiaries**
**Country of**
**Incorporation**
**Percentage**
**Held****Food equipment**Castel MAC S.p.A.
Italy
100%Cleveland Range, LLC
USA
100%Cleveland Range, Ltd.
Canada
100%Convotherm Elektrogerte GmbH
Germany
100%Convotherm Singapore Pte Ltd.
Singapore
100%Enodis Corporation
USA
100%Enodis Deutschland GmbH
Germany
100%Enodis France SA
France
100%Enodis Group Limited
England
100%Enodis Holdings Limited *
England
100%Enodis Iberia SA
Spain
100%Enodis UK Limited
England
100%Frimont S.p.A
Italy
100%Frymaster L.L.C.
USA
100%Garland Commercial Industries, Inc.
USA
100%Garland Commercial Ranges, Limited
Canada
100%Guyon Productions SA
France
100%Hartek Beverage Handling GmbH
Germany
100%Jackson MSC Inc.
USA
100%Kysor Industrial Corporation
USA
100%Lincoln Foodservice Products, Inc.
USA
100%Linea.net, Milano SrL
Italy
95%Merco/Savory, Inc.
USA
100%Merrychef Limited
England
100%Mile High Equipment Company
USA
100%New Ton Food Equipment Co. Ltd
Thailand
99.9%Scotsman Beverage Systems Limited
England
100%Scotsman Group Inc.
USA
100%Scotsman Ice Systems SA (PTY) Ltd
South Africa
51%Scotsman Ice Systems (Shanghai) Company Ltd
China
100%Technyform Productions SA
France
100%The Delfield Company
USA
100%Vent Master (Europe) Limited
England
100%Viscount Catering Limited
England
100%Welbilt Manufacturing (Thailand) Limited
(joint venture)+
Thailand
50%Welbilt Walk-Ins, L.P.
USA
100%**Property**Enodis Investments Limited
England
100%Enodis Property Developments Limited
England
100% +  Joint venture accounted for using the equity method.
 *  Held directly by the Company.
Exhibit 32

PERIODIC REPORT CERTIFICATION
of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

I,
Dennis C. Pence, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



/s/ DENNIS C. PENCE Dennis C. Pence
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


March 25,
2011

I,
James A. Bell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Coldwater Creek Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



/s/ JAMES A. BELL James A. Bell
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)


March 25,
2011

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7446

ROBERT L. FUNCHES,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CITY OF PETERSBURG, VA CIRCUIT COURT,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-00819-HEH)

Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 31, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Funches, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Funches appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Funches v. City of Petersburg, No. 3:13-cv-00819-HEH (E.D. Va. 

Sept. 4, 2014). We deny Funches’s motions to appoint counsel, 

amend his complaint, extend the filing deadline to file 

additional briefs, and for a transcript at government expense. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Mark P. Mellin, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ILEX Oncology, Inc;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 9, 2004/s/ Mark P. MellinMark P. Mellin
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

B.A.B.,

Petitioner

v.

J.J.B.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 494 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 24[Moore Stephens Cooper Molyneux LLP Letterhead]April 13, 2005Mr. Robert MotternWeizenecker, Mottern and Fisher, P.C.1800 Peachtree Street, Suite 620Atlanta, GA 30309Dear Mr. Mottern,     Re:  Silver Dragon Resources, Inc.            December 31,2004 Audited Financial StatementsWe hereby provide our consent as independent accountants to theincorporation of the above noted financial statements in the Company'sForm 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004.Yours truly,MOORE STEPHENS COOPER MOLYNEUX LLP/s/ Sandy A. Solecki    Sandy A. Solecki
#### Jeffrey A. Metzger, Appellant, v Paula Metzger, Respondent.

—Order unanimously reversed on the law, with costs and matter transferred to Monroe County Family Court *525(Bonadio, J.), for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Pursuant to an oral stipulation in open court, defendant was awarded custody of the parties’ daughter, Jessica, in a 1983 divorce decree, and a visitation schedule was established for plaintiff. In December 1984, defendant filed a petition in Family Court for a modification of plaintiff’s visitation rights. Following negotiations and an informal agreement, Family Court (Bonadio, J.) modified plaintiff’s visitation rights. Eight months later, plaintiff moved in Supreme Court to vacate or modify the visitation provisions of the Family Court order. Defendant cross-moved to transfer the motion to Judge Bonadio, or for an upward modification of maintenance and child support. Supreme Court denied both motions, apparently because it mistakenly believed that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion to modify the Family Court order should have been presented to Judge Bonadio (CPLR 2221). We conclude, however, that Supreme Court had jurisdiction to transfer the motion to Judge Bonadio and that its failure to do so was error. The divorce decree was silent regarding future enforcement or modification of its provisions. As a consequence, Supreme Court and Family Court had equal power to entertain motions for modification of the custody and visitation portions of the decree *(see,*Family Ct Act § 652 [b]). Supreme Court was, therefore, obligated to transfer the motion to Judge Bonadio pursuant to CPLR 2221. We exercise our review powers to transfer plaintiff’s motion to Judge Bonadio *(see,*CPLR 5501, 5522; *Lipkis v Pikus,*64 NY2d 830).

We agree with plaintiff’s contention that a plenary hearing is necessary before the motion to modify the visitation provisions of the Family Court order can be resolved *(Allen v Kriesel,*87 AD2d 992; *see also, Bayne v Roberts,*112 AD2d 775; *Matter of Ferro v Ferro,*91 AD2d 1205). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cicoria, J.—visitation.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert E. Anthony, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ *1512of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Centra, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20560 Summary Calendar

__________________

EUGENIO L. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; EVANS, Sgt.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (CA-H-94-2933)

______________________________________________ July 2, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eugenio L. Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 382692, a ppeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint, in which he alleged that

he had been denied adequate medical care. We cannot determine from

the record the basis of the court’s dismissal, be it for mootness,

justiciability, frivolousness, or failure to state a claim, because2

the court dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated at a

Spears hearing, and the tape of the hearing is largely inaudible.

Consequently, we cannot determine whether the district court abused

its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the assurance that

certain future medical treatment would be pro vided to Rodriguez.

Accordingly, we REMAND the case to the district court for the

limited purpose of reconstructing the record as it pertains to the

Spears hearing to clarify the basis of the dismissal. S ee Fed. R.

App. P. 10(c) and (d). Following remand, the district court shall

return the case to this court for further proceedings.

LIMITED REMAND.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**PERICOM
      SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 27, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




November
      6, 2008




By:
            /s/
                Angela ChenAngela
                ChenChief
                Financial OfficerPericom
                Semiconductor Corporation
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 17 - 00194 - CR

MILLICENT RENEE WILS ON APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COUR T OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1416 629D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Millicent Renee Wilson appeals h er c onviction and ten

- year sentence for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second

- degree felony enhanced by a prior felony conviction

. She pleaded not guilty to the indictme nt and elected to waive a jury. After the trial court found her guilty, she pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Wilson’s appointed appellat e counsel has filed a motion to with draw and a brief under Anders v. California , representing that “ [t]he record in this case reveals no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal .” 386 U.S. 738,
744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967)

. Counsel’ s brie f and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record d emonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Wilson filed a pro response to counsel’ s brief, and the State filed a letter brief agreeing with appellant’s attorney’s assessment of the appeal

. Once an appellant ’ s court
- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous an d fulfills the requirements of Anders , we must independently examine the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Only then may we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record , counsel’ s brief , appellant’s pro se
response , and the State’s letter brief . We agree with counsel that this appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ; see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to with draw and affirm the trial court’ s judgment.3 /s/ Wade Birdwell WADE BIRD WELL JUSTICE

PANEL: KERR, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL , JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 26, 2018
# L_2013154DE.01001001.xml

| 6.6.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 154/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 154/10

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 810/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 13. Juli 2009 über einen Visakodex der Gemeinschaft (Visakodex)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 243 vom 15. September 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 243 vom 15. September 2009

Auf Seite 5, Artikel 3 Absatz 5 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „b) | Drittstaatsangehörige, die über einen von Andorra, Kanada, Japan, Monaco, San Marino oder den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ausgestellten, in Anhang V aufgelisteten gültigen Aufenthaltstitel verfügen, welcher die vorbehaltlose Rückübernahme des Inhabers garantiert;“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

Drittstaatsangehörige, die über einen von Andorra, Kanada, Japan, Monaco, San Marino oder den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ausgestellten, in Anhang V aufgelisteten gültigen Aufenthaltstitel verfügen, welcher die vorbehaltlose Rückübernahme des Inhabers garantiert;“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | Drittstaatsangehörige, die über einen von Andorra, Kanada, Japan, San Marino oder den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ausgestellten, in Anhang V aufgelisteten gültigen Aufenthaltstitel verfügen, welcher die vorbehaltlose Rückübernahme des Inhabers garantiert;“. |
| --- | --- |

„b)

Drittstaatsangehörige, die über einen von Andorra, Kanada, Japan, San Marino oder den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ausgestellten, in Anhang V aufgelisteten gültigen Aufenthaltstitel verfügen, welcher die vorbehaltlose Rückübernahme des Inhabers garantiert;“.

Auf Seite 34, Anhang V, Liste der Aufenthaltstitel, VEREINIGTE STAATEN VON AMERIKA, erster Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

| „— | Form I-551 Permanent resident card (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) (zwei oder zehn Jahre gültig)“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

Form I-551 Permanent resident card (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) (zwei oder zehn Jahre gültig)“

muss es heißen:

| „— | Form I-551 Permanent resident card (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) (zwei bis zehn Jahre gültig)“. |
| --- | --- |

„—

Form I-551 Permanent resident card (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) (zwei bis zehn Jahre gültig)“.

---
Exhibit 4.2


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated June 28, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2075 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-254383) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


June 28, 2021