alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Timmy Edward HATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Oscar MENDOZA, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director; Barbaiza Trevino, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Director; Lori Davis, Lynaugh Unit Warden; Brad Livingston, Safe Prisons Coordinator; Ms. Biese, Safe Prisons Officer; Major Perez, Major, Unit Classification Committee; Captain Chavez, Captain of Security; Sergeant Lopez, Gang Coordinator; Ms. McComb, Unit Classification Committee; Lieutenant Rivas, Lieutenant; Captain Pena, Captain; Officer Hollond, Officer; A. Hernandez, Officer; Lieutenant Cateras, Lieutenant; F. Rodriguez, Lieutenant; Warden E. Guerrero, Assistant Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-51021

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Timmy Edward Hatfield, Lubbock, TX, pro se.

David A. Talbot, Jr., Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Timmy Edward Hatfield, Texas prisoner # 1521700, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit without prejudice as moot. This court has a duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 213-14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days *368of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. Hatfield’s notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 4(a)(1)(A) because it was filed at the earliest on September 22, 2010, more than 30 days after the district court’s judgment dismissing his suit was entered on May 12, 2010. Additionally, Rule 4(a)(5) and (6) do not assist Hatfield with respect to the untimeliness of his notice of appeal. Given the absence of a timely notice of appeal in this case, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           20,024,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5,515,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        881,000
<INVENTORY>                                         517,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 27,399,000
<PP&E>                                           13,577,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    8,357,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   36,359,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14,870,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            247,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      125,305,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     36,359,000
<SALES>                                          16,334,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 16,334,000
<CGS>                                             5,527,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5,527,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 23,251,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (216,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (12,228,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (12,228,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (12,228,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.50)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John E. Bonsignore, III, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered June 19, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A review of the record indicates that the evidence in question was properly seized. There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the police used his vehicle’s defective taillight as a pretext to approach. Having observed a traffic violation, the police properly approached the defendant’s vehicle and asked him for his license and registration *(see, People v Ellis,*62 NY2d 393, 396). The police were also justified in approaching the vehicle since an articulable basis to inquire was present: to wit, defendant and his vehicle matched a description previously furnished to the police in connection with the use of a stolen credit card at a nearby gasoline station and the defendant was observed in a high-frequency drug area in a suspicious situation *(see, People v Harrison,*57 NY2d 470, 481; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223). The defendant’s statement "it’s only a little pot. It’s mine” when the officer ob*772served a plastic bag of marihuana on the center console *(see, People v Gavin,*115 AD2d 618) provided probable cause to arrest the defendant and to conduct a search incidental thereto *(see, People v Troiano,*35 NY2d 476, 478), since the police had reason to believe the vehicle might contain evidence related to the crime for which defendant was arrested *(see, People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49, 55, *rearg denied*56 NY2d 646). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
* 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. 00-40431 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAY MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CR-155-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - January 23, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ray Martin pleaded guilty to being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). He now appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred in not sustaining his objection to a two-level increase pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) for his possession of seven firearms in connection with the offense. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to connect him to the four firearms found in his truck. However, Martin was the registered owner of the truck and he was a passenger in the truckNo. 00-40431 -2- when it was stopped for a traffic violation, at which point the firearms were found in the truck with Martin, along with drug paraphernalia including eleven syringes. A subsequent search of Martin’s person revealed a small amount of methamphetamine in the front pocket of his overalls. Thus, the district court’s finding that Martin possessed the firearms, within the meaning of § 2K2.1(b)(1), while an unlawful user of a narcotic, was not clear error. See United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir.)(no clear error where the district court’s factual finding is plausible in light of the record read as a whole), cert. denied , 523 U.S. 1142 (1998)

. Martin’s argument regarding the district court’s denial of a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, relates to his conviction for theft of Government property and is addressed in that appeal.
AFFIRMED.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intevac, Inc.;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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ JEFFREY ANDRESONJeffrey AndresonExecutive Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, George Hancock, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Pyramid Breweries Inc.
("registrant"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within the
      entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors:

      a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely 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 other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
      controls over financial reporting.

Date: August 16, 2004

/s/ GEORGE HANCOCK
------------------
George Hancock
Interim Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Christopher Di Meo, Appellant, v Dale Artus, Respondent.

Submitted March 12, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2443 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2443

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to CLIA 
         waiver study design guidance for in vitro diagnostics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to CLIA 
         waiver study design guidance for in vitro diagnostics.

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

SECTION 1. CLIA WAIVER STUDY DESIGN GUIDANCE FOR IN VITRO DIAGNOSTICS.

    (a) Draft Revised Guidance.--Not later than 12 months after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall publish a draft guidance that--
            (1) revises section V ``Demonstrating Insignificant Risk of 
        an Erroneous Result--`Accuracy''' of the guidance entitled 
        ``Recommendations for Clinical Laboratory Improvement 
        Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) Waiver Applications for Manufacturers 
        of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices'' and dated January 30, 2008; 
        and
            (2) includes guidance on the appropriate use of comparable 
        performance between a waived user and a moderately complex 
        laboratory user to demonstrate accuracy.
    (b) Final Revised Guidance.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services shall finalize the draft guidance published under subsection 
(a) not later than 12 months after the comment period for such draft 
guidance closes.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



FIRST ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
  NAMES OF SUBSIDIARIES
    
    ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OFLNC Holdings, Inc.
    
    NevadaFirst Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc.
    
    TexasFirst Acceptance Insurance Company of Georgia, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaFirst Acceptance Insurance Company of Tennessee, Inc.
    
    TennesseeAcceptance Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    GeorgiaAlabama Acceptance Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    AlabamaFirst Acceptance Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareTransit Automobile Club Inc.
    
    TennesseeUSAuto Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareAcceptance Insurance Agency of Tennessee, Inc.
    
    TennesseeAcceptance Insurance Agency of Texas, Inc.
    
    TexasAcceptance Insurance Agency of Illinois, Inc.
    
    Illinois
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2911

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Pedro O. Montoya, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 31, 2009 Filed: September 2, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
The district court 1 sentenced Pedro Montoya to 180 months in prison after he pled guilty to a drug count and a forfeiturecount pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver of appeal rights. In a brief filed under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the prison sentence and asserts an ineffective-assistance claim on Montoya’s behalf. Montoya has filed a pro se supplemental brief, claiming that he was misled by counsel about the length of his prison sentence.

1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.We enforce the appeal waiver containe d in the written plea agreement, because the record indicates that Montoya ente red into the agreement and the waiver knowingly and voluntarily, the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (e n banc) (describing conditions for enforcing appeal waiver and discussi ng narrowness of miscarriage-of-justice exception; alleged misapplication of Guidelin es or abuse of discretion is not subject to appeal in face of valid appeal waiver); United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case). To the extent the ineffective-assi stance claim falls outside the scope of the appeal waiver, we decline to review it inthis direct appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006).
Further, we reviewed the recordindependently in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivol ous issues beyond the scope of the appeal waiver.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s moti on to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2514 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2514

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent veterans from 
  being disqualified from contributing to health savings accounts by 
  reason of receiving medical care for service-connected disabilities 
   under programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. 
    Babin, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Olson, Mr. 
Palazzo, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Rush, Mr. 
 Takai, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Zinke, Ms. McSally, and Mr. 
   Sablan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent veterans from 
  being disqualified from contributing to health savings accounts by 
  reason of receiving medical care for service-connected disabilities 
   under programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Helping Veterans Save for Health 
Care Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT BY REASON 
              OF RECEIVING MEDICAL CARE FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITIES UNDER PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Special rule for individuals eligible for 
                certain veterans benefits.--An individual shall not 
                fail to be treated as an eligible individual for any 
                period merely because the individual receives hospital 
                care or medical services under any law administered by 
                the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a service-
                connected disability (within the meaning of section 
                101(16) of title 38, United States Code).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to months beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021430EN.01000701.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 430/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 430/7

---

Annual reports on the implementation of the EU budget and on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th European Development Funds for the 2020 financial year

(2021/C 430/07)

The European Court of Auditors will publish its annual reports for the 2020 financial year on the implementation of the EU budget and on the activities funded by the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th European Development Funds, together with the institutions’ replies, on 26 October 2021.

The reports can be consulted directly or downloaded, from 00:01 on 26 October 2021, at the European Court of Auditors’ website:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=58665

The following link to an overview of the annual reports and related documents will become active at the same time:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/AR2020.aspx

---
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 March 27, 2004 (the
Report), I, Michael D. Craighead, 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.



May 11, 2004



By:

/s/ Michael D. CraigheadMichael D. CraigheadChief Financial OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation