alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Misc. No. 5-08

IN RE: FEE SCHEDULE O R D E R

ALL FEES MUST BE PAID BY CHECK OR MONEY ORDER. CASH IS NOT ACCEPTED.

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 45(f), that the following revised schedule of fees approved by

the Court is announced. 

For filing Notice of Appeal or Petition for Extraordinary Relief in this Court, 

but not when the Court orders case redocketing for its administrative convenience $50.00 

For filing Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(fee set by that court, payable to this Court) 450.00

For reproducing a paper copy from original documents or from microfiche or 

microfilm reproductions of original records, per copy page .50*

For each microfiche sheet of film or microfilm jacket copy of any Court record,

when available 3.00 

For reproducing audio or video tape recording, including cost of materials 15.00 

For searching Court records, per name or item searched 15.00*

For retrieval of a Court record from a Federal Records Center or National Archives 25.00 

For certifying a document or paper, whether certification is made directly on 

the document or by separate instrument 5.00 

For application for admission to practice before the Court 30.00 

For a certificate of admission to practice, suitable for framing:

attorney 42.25#

nonattorney 35.75#

For a Certificate of Good Standing 5.00

DATED: April 8, 2008 FOR THE COURT:

 Norman Y. Herring 

* Indicate services on behalf of the United States

 if information is available through electronic access NORMAN Y. HERRING

 Clerk of the Court

# Changes effected by this Order
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         177,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               564,418
<PP&E>                                      13,049,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               (272,680)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,631,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          473,079
<BONDS>                                      5,672,115
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,986,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,631,834
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,210,697
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               711,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,194
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            261,803
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,506)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   254,297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.90
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000116

15-MAY-2015

08:26 AM
#### In the Matter of James R. McManus, Appellant, v Herman D. Farrell, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered on September 16, 1987, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abel SAENZ-LOPEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10658

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jerri L. Sims, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Charles M. Bleil, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Abel Saenz-Lopez, Jr., appeals the sentence imposed for the revocation of his supervised release. He was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment on count one and 12 months of imprisonment on count two, to run concurrently. The district court ordered that the revocation sentence run consecutively to an undischarged federal sentence.

Saenz-Lopez has failed to show any error with respect to the substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006). Thus, he has failed to show the revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable. *See United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.2011).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. Section 1350)**

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                February 14, 2007 |                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | By:                /s/ Michael A. Maltzman                               |
|                                    | Michael                A. Maltzman                                       |
|                                    | Vice                President and Chief Financial                Officer |
EXHIBIT 23.02






CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-66758, 333-102509, 333-109809, 333-112728, 333-133332, 333-141660, 333-149281, 333-159211 and 333-167533 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-140268 and 333-143989 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of PDF Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for  the year ended December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP




San Jose, California


March 22, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20992-20993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of 
the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 940. Interested 
parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register.
Agreement No.: 011138-001
Title: Greater Bali Hai Service
Parties:
    Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.
    Nippon Yusen Kaisha
    China Navigation Company Limited
    Kyowa Shipping Co., Ltd.

    Synopsis: The proposed agreement modification adds Kyowa Shipping 
as a party to the joint service and updates the agreement language to 
eliminate unnecessary or obsolete language.

Agreement No.: 011527-006
Title: Independent Carriers Alliance
Parties:
    CMA-CGM, S.A.
    Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.
    Montemar Maritima S.A.
    Senator Lines GmbH
    Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd.

    Synopsis: The proposed modification (1) deletes DiGregorio 
Navagacao Ltda. as a party; (2) adds CMA-CGM as a party; (3) deletes 
reference to DSR in

[[Page 20993]]

Senator Lines' name; (4) revises Montemar Maritima S.A.'s name by 
deleting its d/b/a reference; (5) restates the vessel allocation and 
space contribution of each of the parties; (6) revises withdrawal 
notice provisions; (7) deletes reference to Agreement No. 011569 
between DiGregorio and Amazon Line; and (8) deletes certain 
restrictions on the charter of space, rationalization of sailing or 
other cooperative arrangements with outside parties but retains the 
right of first refusal for other agreement parties with respect to the 
chartering of any excess space by any member.

Agreement No.: 011760
Title: Discovery Cruise Line/Seaboard Space Charter and Sailing 
Agreement
Parties: Discovery Sun Partnership, d/b/a Discovery Cruise Line
    Seaboard Marine, Ltd.

    Synopsis: The proposed agreement authorizes the parties to share 
vessel space in the trade between U.S. Atlantic ports, including Puerto 
Rico, and ports in the Bahamas.

Agreement No.: 011761
Title: CMA CGM/Norasia Transpacific Loop 3 Slot Charter Agreement
Parties:
    CMA CGM, S.A.
    Norasia Container Lines Limited
    Synopsis: The proposed agreement establishes a vessel-sharing 
agreement between the parties in the trade between the West Coast of 
the United States and ports in the Far East in the Japan/Singapore/
South East Asia range.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10287 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 99-528

FLORA T. BREWER, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

In a single-judge order dated July 23, 2001, the Court vacated the January 8, 1999, decision

of the Board of Veterans' Appeals that denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death,

and remanded the matter for readjudication pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000

(VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000). On August 13, 2001, the appellant,

through counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration and an alternative motion for a panel decision.

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the record on appeal, it is by the single judge

ORDERED that the appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied. It is by the panel

ORDERED that the appellant's motion for a decision by a panel is denied.

DATED: February 26, 2002 PER CURIAM.

STEINBERG, Judge, concurring: The Court's precedents clearly sanction the exercise of

discretion by the single judge not to address non-reversal remand grounds. See Mahl v. Principi,

15 Vet.App. 37, 37-40 (2001); Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18, 19-20 (2001). Although I disagree

with the decision to exercise discretion in this fashion, see Mahl, 15 Vet.App. at 40-47 (Steinberg,

J., dissenting), especially where the appellant, as in the instant case, has asserted a number of remand

grounds with persuasiveness and the Secretary has chosen not to counter those arguments, my

position is clearly not in the majority – generally or in this case – and my vote cannot change the

panel's decision here to deny a panel decision that could address these grounds. Hence, I have

decided in this and future similar cases not to delay a VCAA remand in order for me to address, in

a solitary way, the nonreversal remand grounds asserted by the appellant. I am hopeful, nonetheless,

that on remand the Board will be particularly scrupulous in seeking to avoid repetition of

questionable adjudicative actions that it took in the decision on appeal, so that a future, second

appeal – and a possible second remand – may be unnecessary.
2

As to the appellant's arguments for reversal, the Secretary effectively rebutted those

arguments in his brief in response to the appellant's opening brief. The evidence in support of

service connection for the cause of the appellant's husband's death is not uncontroverted, and reversal

therefore is not the appropriate remedy. See Secretary's Brief at 11-15; Gilbert v. Derwinski,

1 Vet.App. 49, 58-59 (1990); see also Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Hinkley, Appellant.

Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered June 30, 1986, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and bail jumping in the second degree.

When this matter was previously before us, we withheld decision in order to get a dispositive determination as to whether County Court ruled on defendant’s suppression motion (132 AD2d 862). County Court has indicated that before it could render a decision on the suppression motion defendant absconded. After defendant was found and brought back to the court, he pleaded guilty to the charged crimes. No decision was ever rendered on the suppression motion. By pleading guilty prior to obtaining an order denying his suppression motion, defendant has waived appellate review *(see, People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 687; *People v Plummer, 122*AD2d 285, *lv denied*68 NY2d 915, 916).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6108 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6108

 To strike certain provisions of Public Law 111-226 relating to Texas 
                      and the Education Jobs Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2010

Mr. Burgess (for himself, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Gohmert, 
  Mr. Culberson, Mr. Olson, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
 Hensarling, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
 Carter, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Granger, Mr. Neugebauer, and Mr. Hall 
  of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To strike certain provisions of Public Law 111-226 relating to Texas 
                      and the Education Jobs Fund.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TEXAS.

    Section 101 of Public Law 111-226 is amended by striking paragraph 
(11).
                                 <all>
```
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**Stratus      Services Group, Inc.**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18      U.S.C. Section 1350)**

| 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |

| Dated:                August 13, 2007 |                                                 |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | By:  /s/                Joseph J. Raymond  |
|                                  | Joseph                J. Raymond                     |
|                                  | Chairman                of the Board of Directors,   |
|                                  | President                and Chief Executive Officer |

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6182 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make additional capitalization grants to the water pollution control revolving funds of States 

that adopt smart growth principles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. KRATOVIL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make additional capitalization grants to 

the water pollution control revolving funds of States that 

adopt smart growth principles. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SMART GROWTH ALLOTMENTS. 

4 Section 604 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

5 Act (33 U.S.C. 1384) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(d) SMART GROWTH ALLOTMENTS.— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6182 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In addition to making cap2 italization grants under section 601(a) for a fiscal 

3 year, the Administrator shall make available funds 

4 for distribution among eligible States under a for5 mula to be determined by the Administrator. 

6 ‘‘(2) USE OF FUNDS.—Funds distributed to a 

7 State under paragraph (1) shall be available to the 

8 State for the purposes described in section 601(a) 

9 and shall be subject to the same terms and condi10 tions as apply to capitalization grants made under 

11 that section. 

12 ‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE STATES.—In this subsection, the 

13 term ‘eligible State’ means a State that has adopted 

14 smart growth principles, as determined by the Ad15 ministrator. 

16 ‘‘(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

17 There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 

18 year 2011, and each fiscal year thereafter, to carry 

19 out this subsection a sum equal to 5 percent of the 

20 amount made available for capitalization grants 

21 under section 601(a) for the fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40668 

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIAM LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JACK M. GARNER, Warden of Telford Unit;

KAREN BROWN, Lieutenant at Telford Unit;

ZALDA G. GLASS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:96-CV-162

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Lee, Texas inmate #721936, appeals the dismissal as

frivolous of his civil rights complaint. He argues that the

defendants’ acts amounted to the denial of his right of access to

the courts, the defendants were required by Texas statute to

comply with his request for information, and, for the first time

on appeal, the defendants’ failure to supply the requested
No. 96-40668

- 2 -

** This last argument is patently frivolous and does not

amount to plain error. See Highlands Ins. v. National Union Fire

Ins., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying plain-error

standard in civil case to issue raised for the first time on

appeal), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).

information amounted to the suppression of exculpatory evidence

and violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.** We have

carefully reviewed the appellate record. For essentially the

same reasons as relied upon by the district court in its order of

dismissal, see Lee v. Garner, No. 5:96cv162 (E.D. Tex. July 2,

1996), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. See Denton

v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Lee that any additional

frivolous appeal filed by him will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lee is further cautioned to

review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. All pending motions are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. MOTIONS DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
 
 
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-8 and all Post-Effective
Amendments thereto
(Nortel Networks U.S. Deferred Compensation Plan)
(333-11558)
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-3 and all Post-Effective
Amendments thereto
(Common Shares, Preferred Shares, Debt Securities, Guarantees,
Warrants to Purchase Equity Securities, Warrants to Purchase Debt
Securities,
Share Purchase Contracts, Share Purchase or Equity Units of Nortel
Networks Corporation and
Guaranteed Debt Securities of Nortel Networks Limited)
(333-88164)
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-4 and all Amendments
thereto
(Nortel Networks Limited Offers to Exchange:
$450,000,000 principal amount of 10.75% Senior Notes due 2016
$550,000,000 principal amount of 10.125% Senior Notes due 2013
$1,000,000,000 principal amount of Floating Rate Senior Notes due
2011)
(333-145972)
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-3 and all Amendments
thereto
(Nortel Networks Corporation Proposed Sale to Public of:
$575,000,000 1.75% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2012
$575,000,000 2.125% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2014
35,937,500 Common Shares of Nortel Networks Corporation)
(333-146273)