alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40278

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR HUIJON-LEON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CR-1316-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Huijon-Leon

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Huijon-Leon has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40278 Document: 00514279630 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-40278

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40278 Document: 00514279630 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
**EXHIBIT
      32**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


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




In
      connection with the annual report of Capital Growth Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Thomas G.Hudson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Derry L. Behm,
      the Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the
      best of my knowledge, pursuant to l8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      April 30, 2007


By:
            /s/
                Thomas G. HudsonName: Thomas
                G. HudsonTitle: Chief
                Executive Officer




By:
            /s/
                Derry L. BehmName: Derry
                L. BehmTitle: Chief
                Financial and Accounting Officer




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.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5733 

To permit health care providers to disclose certain protected health 

information to law enforcement officials. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2010 

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To permit health care providers to disclose certain protected 

health information to law enforcement officials. 

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 ‘‘Ed Thomas Act of 

5 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN PATIENT INFORMATION 

7 TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—If— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5733 IH

1 (1) an individual is accompanied by a law en2 forcement official at the time such individual seeks 

3 care from a covered entity; 

4 (2) such official provides to such entity a re5 quest, in writing, that the entity disclose to the offi6 cial protected health information relating to such in7 dividual; and 

8 (3) such written request is made during the pe9 riod that begins when such individual seeks such 

10 care and ends 24 hours after such individual is dis11 charged from such care or otherwise stops receiving 

12 such care, 

13 section 164.512(f)(1) of title 45, Code of Federal Regula14 tions, shall apply to the disclosure of such information (in15 cluding the date of discharge) to the law enforcement 

16 agency that employs such official by a covered entity in 

17 the same manner that such section applies to the disclo18 sure of information by a covered entity in response to ad19 ministrative requests. 

20 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 

21 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 

22 and Human Services shall promulgate regulations to carry 

23 out this section. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021279EN.01000101.xml

| 13.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10302 — Standard Industries/Grace)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 279/01)

On 7 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 the Annual Report of O2Diesel Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan
Rae, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David L. Koontz, 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, to the best
of my knowledge that: 1. The amended Report on Form 10-KSB/A fully complies with the requirements of
Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be
disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as
specifically required by law. /s/ Alan Rae
    
    /s/ David L. KoontzAlan Rae
    
    David L. KoontzChief Executive Officer
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### Mark DELAPLANE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 09-56910.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2010.

Filed April 13, 2011.

*670Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Amanda Lloyd, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Anne Neill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Warden John Marshall appeals from the district court’s grant of the petition for habeas corpus of Mark Delaplane. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Swarthout v. Cooke,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011), we hold that Delaplane’s federal right to due process was not violated. Delaplane “was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” *Id.*at 862. Thus, Delaplane is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.

Delaplane argues that *Cooke*did not address whether the Constitution requires a showing of some evidence of future danger before states can deny parole. This argument has been rejected by our precedent. *See Pearson v. Muntz,*639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). Delaplane also argues that the Governor violated his due process rights by not granting Delaplane a hearing before reversing his grant of parole. This argument was raised for the first time in a letter filed pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. It was thus made too late, and is not properly before us. *See id.*at 1191 n. 5.

REVERSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* 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. 98-10366 Summary Calendar

LINZY E. LINCOLN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-243

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Linzy E. Lincoln, Texas prisoner no. # 265570, requests a COA to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus for failure to obtain permission from this court to file a successive petition. Lincoln argues that (1) the trial court “breached it[s] plea bargain agreement,” (2) the state breached the plea agreement, (3) the trial court lost jurisdiction when it amended the indictment, (4) the trial court should have quashed the indictment, (5) the jury improperlyNo. 98-10366 -2- considered parole laws, (6) Lincoln was denied a fair trial because the jury foreman admitted to having been a robbery victim, (7) the state improperly informed the jury of three prior robberies, (8) Lincoln was improperly denied a good time credit, (9) Lincoln was denied effective assistance of counsel for five separately enumerated reasons. The district court denied Lincoln’s petition because it was successive and Lincoln had failed to receive permission from this court to file it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). After the district court’s order dismissing the instant case, this court denied Lincoln’s request to file a successive petition to assert errors which allegedly occurred during his trial. In re Lincoln , No. 98-00137 (5th Cir. Apr. 15, 1998). This court, however, denied as unnecessary Lincoln’s request that he be allowed to file a petition concerning calculation and/or denial of his parole. Id. ; see In re Cain , 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998) (challenge to disciplinary proceedings that became final subsequent to a prior habeas petition is not "second or successive" petition). Because Lincoln did not need permission to file his petition regarding the issue of calculation of his parole, the district court erred in dismissing the petition as it related to that issue. See Murphy v. Johnson , 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997) Lincoln, however, has failed to make a credible showing that the district court erred in dismissing his other habeas claims. COA is DENIED as to all issues involving allegations of errors occurring at Lincoln’s trial. COA is GRANTED as toNo. 98-10366 -3- Lincoln’s arguments regarding parole and good time credit calculation, and the district court’s decision regarding Lincoln’s parole claim is VACATED AND REMANDED for consideration of this claim on the merits.
COA GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; PAROLE CLAIMS
VACATED AND REMANDED.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021372EN.01001501.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/15 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10374 — Bain Capital/Hitachi Metals)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 372/12)

1.

On 8 September 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021372EN.01001501-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Bain Capital Investors, LLC (‘Bain Capital’, United States), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Hitachi Metals, Ltd. (‘Hitachi Metals’, Japan). |

Bain Capital acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Hitachi Metals.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Bain Capital: private equity investment firm that invests in companies across a number of industries, including consumer retail and dining, financial and business services, healthcare, industrial, energy, technology, media, and telecommunications, at global level. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Hitachi Metals: provision of metal products and materials, electronics and information components, and functional components, at a global level. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2021372EN.01001501-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10374 — Bain Capital/Hitachi Metals

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021372EN.01001501-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2021372EN.01001501-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5706 

AN ACT 

To designate the building occupied by the Government Printing Office located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ‘‘Frank Evans Government Printing 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5706 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The building occupied by the Government Printing 

3 Office located at 31451 East United Avenue in Pueblo, 

4 Colorado, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Frank 

5 Evans Government Printing Office Building’’ during the 

6 period in which the building is occupied by the Govern7 ment Printing Office. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 With respect to the period in which the building re10 ferred to in section 1 is occupied by the Government Print11 ing Office, any reference in a law, map, regulation, docu12 ment, record, or other paper of the United States to that 

13 building shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frank 

14 Evans Government Printing Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5706 

AN ACT 

To designate the building occupied by the GovernBuilding’’. ‘‘Frank Evans Government Printing Office United Avenue in Pueblo, Colorado, as the ment Printing Office located at 31451 East
Exhibit 10.91

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between
Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Shenzhen Eastern Branch,
Agricultural Bank of China (the Creditor) dated July 23, 2009

Main contents

- Contract number: 81101200900001669;
- Loan principal: RMB 50 million;
- Loan term: from July 23, 2009 to January 22, 2010;
- Floating interest rate: annually 4.617%, rate adjustment in a 3-month
  cycle;

- Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the
  20th day of each month;
- Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 4.617% plus 30% *4.617%;
- Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 4.617% plus 50%
  *4.617%;

- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw
  material of the Company;
- Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time
  limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand
  prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of
  punitive interest incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive
  interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid
  interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal,
  interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditors expenses incurred due
  to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
- Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid the loan in advance, it
  has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount * share months * 1%.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Rights and obligation of the Creditor
- Rights and obligations of the Company
- Interest penalty of loan
- Guarantee of the loan agreement
- Disputation settlement
- Validity
- Text
- Notification

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and 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 2002, that based on their knowledge: 

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

| /s/ THOMAS E. MADER |   |
|---------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Mader     |   |
| November 8, 2007    |   |
|                |   |
| /s/ AMY T. FORSTER  |   |
| Amy T. Forster      |   |
| November 8, 2007    |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Westell Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Westell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard D. Davidson, do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: March 29, 2007

|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Richard Davidson                                                                 
|Richard Davidson Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)