alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL POINDEXTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CR-04-12)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Schles, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T.

Miller, Acting United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Poindexter pled guilty to making an enclosure

available for the distribution of cocaine base (crack) and cocaine,

21 U.S.C.A. § 856(a)(2) (West Supp. 2005), and was sentenced to a

term of thirty-seven months imprisonment. Poindexter appeals his

sentence. Relying on United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

he asserts that his sentence was imposed in violation of the Ex

Post Facto Clause and that the district court erred in finding by

a preponderance of the evidence that an enhancement for possession

of a weapon was applicable under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (2004). He also contends that the 100:1 statutory

sentencing ratio for cocaine and crack offenses violates the Equal

Protection Clause and renders his sentence unreasonable. We

affirm.

We first find the Ex Post Facto claim to be without

merit. See United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538 (7th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005); United

States v. Scroggins, 411 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v.

Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 432 (2005). Poindexter’s argument that, post-Booker, the

district court must make factual findings concerning the guideline

calculation beyond a reasonable doubt is also without merit. See

United States v. Dalton, 409 F.3d 1247, 1252 (10th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
- 3 -

126 S. Ct. 43 (2005); McReynolds v. United States, 397 F.3d 479,

481 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2559 (2005). Finally, and

Poindexter concedes, we have rejected previous equal protection

challenges to the sentencing ratio for crack and cocaine offenses.

United States v. Fisher, 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th Cir. 1995). The

sentence in this case was imposed within a correctly calculated

guideline range and was within the statutory range. We conclude

that the sentence was reasonable. United States v. Hughes, 401

F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (sentence imposed after Booker

will be affirmed if it is within statutory range and is

reasonable).

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Statelessness

On Aug. 1, 2023, USCIS published policy manual guidance that applies to stateless noncitizens in the United States who may be interested in filing, or who have already filed, an immigration application, petition, or request with USCIS.

A stateless person is generally not considered a national by any state under the operation of its laws.

If you would like USCIS to consider your potential statelessness when we evaluate your immigration application, petition, or request, please see the instructions below.

If the immigration application, petition, or request you have filed or are filing with USCIS is not listed on this page, and you believe you may be stateless, please contact the USCIS Contact Center.

                    - Volume 3 of the Policy Manual
                    - DHS Commitment on Statelessness
                    - UNHCR – Ending Statelessness
                    - UN Conventions on Statelessness

10/30/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 99c

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medina Coffee, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Harry Miller, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.


|Date: March 31, 2003 | S/ HARRY MILLER
    _______________________
    Harry Miller, C.E.O and C.F.O
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
# USCIS Responses to Annual Reports to Congress

By statute, the CIS Ombudsman is required to issue an Annual Report to Congress no later than June 30th of each calendar year. This report provides USCIS with an opportunity to reflect on recent successes and to review areas of operation for improvement. USCIS carefully reviews each recommendation and topic of discussion in the annual report and provides a response. Links to USCIS’s responses are provided below:

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2022 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 595.37 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2021 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 517.79 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2020 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 812.98 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2019 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 7.04 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2018 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 1.81 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2017 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 3.89 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2016 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 592.7 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2015 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 6.41 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2014 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 4.87 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2013 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 671.95 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2012 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 4.68 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2011 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 1.1 MB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2010 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 228.18 KB)

USCIS Response to the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman’s (CISOMB) 2009 Annual Report to Congress (PDF, 405.42 KB)

05/05/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: APPOINTMENT TO

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL

RULES COMMITTEE 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 456

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15

th day of September, 2014, Michael J. Machen, Esquire, 

Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Criminal Procedural Rules 

Committee for a term of three years commencing October 1, 2014.
#### *In re*Dunscomb’s Will.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 5, 1890.)

Wills—Payment of Legacies.

An affidavit which fully states the facts, filed with a notice of a motion to require the administrator to pay a legacy, is a sufficient “petition” to authorize a citation, as prescribed by Code Civil Proc. ü. Y. §§ 3717, 3718, prescribing the procedure to compel payment of legacies.

Appeal from surrogate’s court, Kings county.

The application of Alexander T. Cole, as administrator of Eva Cole, to compel the executors under the will of Eliza Dunscomb to pay to him a legacy bequeathed to his intestate by said Eliza Dunscomb, was dismissed with $10 costs, and he appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Martin E. Halpin,*for appellants. *H. Hendrickson,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

Alexander T. Cole, as administrator of the estate of Eva -Cole, made a motion in the surrogate’s court based upon an affidavit stating that Eliza Dunscomb by her will made a bequest of $200 to Eva Cole; that the Dunscomb will had been proven on .the 5th day of February, 1887, and that the estate had the money with which to pay the legacy; that the executors of the Dunscomb will refused to pay the same on a personal-request made to them by the Cole administrator. There was no opposing affidavit. The court denied the motion upon the ground, apparently, that the application should have been by petition and citation. This is the correct method of procedure. Code Civil Proc. §§ 2717, 2718. The affidavit which accompanied the notice of motion was sufficient as a petition to authorize a citation. The ■notice of motion did no harm. The affidavit, after stating the facts, asked for such relief as the affiant was entitled to upon the facts stated. The order •should therefore be reversed, and the proceeding remitted to the surrogate for further action, without costs on this appeal. All concur.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5872 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2010 

Received 

AUGUST 2, 2010 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs 

AN ACT 

To provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 

2010 for guaranteed loans that are obligations of the 

General and Special Risk Insurance Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

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


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5872 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘General and Special 

3 Risk Insurance Funds Availability Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADEQUATE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal 

6 year 2010 the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop7 ment may enter into commitments to guarantee loans, as 

8 authorized by sections 238 and 519 of the National Hous9 ing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z–3 and 1735c), in an amount 

10 not exceeding $20,000,000,000 in total loan principal, any 

11 part of which is to be guaranteed. 

12 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

13 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

14 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

15 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

16 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

17 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

18 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro19 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

20 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Consolidated Income of Solutia Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the six months ended June 30, 1998, and the Statement of Consolidated
Financial Position as of June 30, 1998. Such information is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such combined financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      439
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6
<INVENTORY>                                        348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,012
<PP&E>                                           3,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,318
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              795
<BONDS>                                            597
<COMMON>                                             1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (51)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,768
<SALES>                                          1,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,465
<CGS>                                            1,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    206
<INCOME-TAX>                                        70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.09
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Theresa D. Becks, Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc., the managing operator ofThe Campbell Fund Trust (the “Trust”), certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Trust;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-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 quarterly 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 internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming 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
E 4

 
 (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.       By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks         Theresa D. Becks    Chief Financial Officer    August 15, 2005  
E 5
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00207-CV

LOU ANNE PERKINS, Appellant

V.

BARRY HICKS, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 362nd District 

Court

of Denton County (15-09007-362)

December 17, 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Lou Anne Perkins shall pay all of the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### Cheryl Passavanti, Respondent, v Lawrence A. Pezzullo, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for unlawful eviction, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), dated April 29, 1986, which denied his motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties on January 27, 1986 and to restore the case to the Trial Calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The stipulation of settlement provided that neither the plaintiff nor anyone on her behalf would contact the press as to the settlement proceedings. Shortly thereafter, a person identifying himself as a reporter for the New York Post telephoned the plaintiff and her attorneys wishing to discuss the settlement. Both the plaintiff and her attorneys refused comment. The defendant subsequently moved to vacate the settlement on the ground that the plaintiff had breached its terms by contacting the press. The court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.

*76Stipulations of settlement are highly favored by the courts and will not lightly be set aside *(Hallock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230; *Belchou v Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co.,*126 AD2d 506), absent a cause sufficient to invalidate a contract such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident *(Hallock v State of New York, supra; Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp. v Suburbia Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*124 AD2d 550, 552). There is no evidence in the record that it was the plaintiff or her agent who contacted the press nor is there any evidence that the terms of the settlement have been disclosed. Absent such a showing, there is no reason to set aside the agreement. Moflen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# V Nonimmigrant Visas

The V visa is a nonimmigrant visa created to allow families to stay together while waiting for the processing of immigrant visas.

If you are a permanent resident (Green Card holder), your spouse, child (unmarried and under 21), or the child of your spouse (your step-child) may be eligible for a V visa if:
                    - You filed  Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative , for your family member on or before December 21, 2000. This includes children (unmarried and under 21) listed on the petition.
                    - The family member has been waiting at least 3 years since you filed the Form I-130.
                    - The immigrant visa is not available on an approved Form I-130 petition OR the application to adjust status is pending OR the petition for an immigrant visa is pending.

If your family member is inside the United States, you file:
                    - Form I-539, Application to Change Nonimmigrant Status , and  Supplement A (PDF, 385.34 KB)  and
                    - Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record .

If your family member is outside the United States:
                    - He or she must go through consular processing. For more information, see the  Nonimmigrant (V) Visa for Spouse and Children of a Lawful Permanent Resident  page. For more information on consular processing overseas, see the  Consular Processing  page.

**More Information**
                    - "How Do I" Guides for Permanent Residents

**Forms**
                    - I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
                    - I-864, Affidavit of Support
                    - Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative

**Other USCIS Links**
                    - Green Card (Permanent Residence)
                    - Green Card for a Family Member of a U.S. Citizen
                    - Visa Availability & Priority Dates
                    - Adjustment of Status
                    - Consular Processing
                    - Check Processing Times
                    - Military
                    - In-Country Refugee/Parole Processing for Central American Minors

**External Links**
                    - Visa Bulletin

07/17/2015

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
#### Michael J. Britt et al., Respondents, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Grand Island et al., Appellants.

Memorandum: We add only that, inasmuch as respondent has no authority over construction on navigable waters of the State, it is anomalous to order it to issue a building permit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. — art 78.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

# CONSENT OF INVESTMENT
ADVISOR

We hereby consent to the reference to
our firm and valuation model in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of MIND C.T.I. Ltd. for
the year ended December 31, 2008 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual
Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117054, No.
333-100804 and No. 333-54632) filed by MIND C.T.I. Ltd.

|                           |                             
|-------------------------- | ----------------------------
|
|
|
|
|105 W. Madison, Suite 1500 |                             
|Chicago, IL 60602          | /s/ Houlihan Smith & Company
|June 26, 2009              | Investment Advisors         



---

---
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

p0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140362

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140362 COA: 286096 Washtenaw CC: 07-001499-FC RONNELL PHILLIP JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.