alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 05-60327

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DARWIN DJUNA LOWE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:04-CR-173-ALL

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Darwin Djuna Lowe appeals his sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to three counts

of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1(a)(1). Lowe

contends that the district court erred in sentencing him based on facts not admitted by him or found2

by a jury. Lowe was sentenced, however, after the Supreme Court issued U nited States v. Booker

,

125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). The transcript of the sentencing proceedings reveals that the parties debated

the reasonableness of the sentence recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines and that

the district court was aware of its abilit y to sentence outside of the Guidelines range. Contrary to

Lowe’s contention, Booker requires the district court to determine the Guidelines range in the same

manner as before Booker

, including “finding all facts relevant to sentencing.” U nited States v. Mares

,

402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir. 2005). Whereas in this case t he Guidelines were not applied in a

mandatory fashion, such fact finding does not violate the Sixth Amendment. Id.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are made available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. 

U.S. Patent No. 6,192,168 (Navy Case No. 79,631) entitled “Optical Waveguide-Flow Cell Integration Method” and U.S. Provisional Patent No. 60/231,548 (Navy Case No. 79,856) entitled “Pressure Relief Vent Fluid Control for Miniature Fluidics Devices”. 

# ADDRESSES:

Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1008.2, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, and must include the Navy Case number. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine M. Cotell, Ph.D., Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone (202) 767-7230. 

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404)

Dated: May 15, 2001. 

J.L. Roth,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-13206 Filed 5-24-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
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

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Form 10-Q Quarterly Report of NGA HoldCo, LLC (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                                                               
|------------------ |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | By: |  | /S/ THOMAS R. REEG                                            
|                   |  |     |  | Thomas R. Reeg
Operating Manager (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Danny Colon, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Ortiz, Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided February 16, 2010

Motion for reargument denied *[see*13 NY3d 343 (2009)]. Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
151 So. 921

#### J. R. INGERSOLL v. William T. JOHNSTON.

1 Div. 800.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 29, 1933.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
Exhibit
10.12

Summary
Sheet for Director Fees

Effective January 1, 2006, each non-employee member of
the Board will receive $1,000 for each Board meeting attended in person and
$500 for each telephonic meeting of the Board participated in, and $1,000 for each
committee meeting attended and $500 participated in by telephone of which such
non-employee member of the Board is a member. In 2006, the Chairman of the
Board will receive an annual retainer of $49,000. Each non-employee member of
the Board, other than the Chairman of the Board and Audit Committee Chair, will
receive an annual retainer of $24,000. The Chairman of the Audit Committee will
receive an annual retainer of $34,000. Each of the annual retainers will be
paid on a quarterly basis. Under the Corporations Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan, directors who are not employees of the Corporation or any of its
subsidiaries receive an automatic one-time grant of an option to acquire 5,000
Common Shares of the Corporation upon their initial election or appointment to
the Board of Directors and are also eligible to receive discretionary grants. A
copy of the form of stock option agreement is filed as an exhibit to the
Corporations Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 3, 2005.  If the
2006 Equity Incentive Plan is approved by shareholders at the 2006 Annual
Meeting, no further grants will be made under the Non-employee Directors Stock
Option Plan. If approved by the shareholders at the 2006 Annual Meeting,
directors will be eligible to receive awards pursuant to the 2006 Equity
Incentive Plan.

---
* 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. 96-41056 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TROY DONOVAN BOUNDS, Defendant-Appellant.

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

USDC No. V-94-CR-1-2

- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Government’s motion for the dismissal of Troy Donovan Bounds’s appeal from the denial of his motion for the return of property under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 41(e) is DENIED. Bounds’s notice of appeal was timely filed. Hunt v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 2 F.3d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1993). Bounds concedes that the property he seeks to have returned has been destroyed. His appeal therefore is moot. See Rocky v. King , 900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). Because the appeal isNo. 96-41056 - 2 - moot, it is DISMISSED.
Exhibit 3.1
 RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
OF
LIBERTY ACQUISITION HOLDINGS CORP.
 Certificate of
Incorporation
 FIRST: Corporation
 SECOND:
 THIRD: DGCL provided however
 FOURTH: Common Stock Preferred Stock
 Preferred Stock Board of
Directors




---



##### 



Preferred Stock Designation
 Common Stock
 Trust
Fund Trust Agreement
 2




---



##### 



FIFTH: Business Combination Target Business Target Business Acquisition Period IPO Co-Investment
  3




---



##### 



Termination Date Dissolution Meeting Plan of Distribution
  SIXTH:
 SEVENTH:
    4




---



##### 



provided however
  EIGHTH:
  5




---



##### 



Covered Person proceeding
 NINTH:
  LIBERTY ACQUISITION HOLDINGS CORP.By:
    /s/ Jared BluesteinName:
    Jared BluesteinTitle:
    Secretary 6
#### STATE v. BARRETT

No. 467P98

Case below: 131 N.C.App. 154

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 December 1998.
EXHIBIT
31.1








Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






I, Dana
Hyde, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:








1)   I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Great Spirits,
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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;





4)   The
small business issuer's other certifying officer 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 small business
issuer 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 the material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)   Evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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;





c)   Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and





5)   The
small business issuer's other certifying officer (s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee
of the small business issuer's board of directors (or
persons  performing the equivalent functions):





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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal controls over
financial reporting.











Date: February
12,
2008                         
By:   /s/ Dana
Hyde


Dana Hyde


Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                          AIRGAS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATIONS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Years Ended March 31,
(In thousands, except per share amounts)                  2004         2003         2002
                                                       ----------   ----------   ----------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>


Weighted Average Shares Outstanding:

     Basic shares outstanding                              72,800       70,500       68,100

     Stock options and warrants - incremental shares        1,900        1,800        1,800
                                                       ----------   ----------   ----------

     Diluted shares outstanding                            74,700       72,300       69,900
                                                       ==========   ==========   ==========

Earnings before the cumulative effect of a change
   in accounting principle                             $   80,192   $   68,105   $   48,585
Cumulative effect of a change in accounting
   principle                                                   --           --      (59,000)
                                                       ----------   ----------   ----------
Net earnings (loss)                                    $   80,192   $   68,105   $  (10,415)
                                                       ==========   ==========   ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per share:
 Earnings per share before the cumulative effect of
   a change in accounting principle                    $     1.10   $      .97   $      .71
 Cumulative effect per share of a change in
   accounting principle                                        --           --         (.86)
                                                       ----------   ----------   ----------
 Net earnings (loss) per share                         $     1.10   $      .97   $     (.15)
                                                       ==========   ==========   ==========

Diluted earnings (loss) per share:
 Earnings per share before the cumulative effect of
   a change in accounting principle                    $     1.07   $      .94   $      .69
 Cumulative effect per share of a change in
   accounting principle                                        --           --         (.84)
                                                       ----------   ----------   ----------
 Net earnings (loss) per share                         $     1.07   $      .94   $     (.15)
                                                       ==========   ==========   ==========
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2532

DIXIE LEDFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUMTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT #17; SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL BOARD SELF-INSURED TRUST FUND;

SOUTH CAROLINA WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION FUND;

ALEXIS INSURANCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-96-2323-3-19-BC)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dixie Ledford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

civil action. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the

magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of 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
COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT

55 WATER STREET, 19th FLOOR

NEW YORK, NY 10041-0099

November 29, 2018

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

1155 21st Street, NW Room 2205 

Washington, DC 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request

Dear Staff:

Pursuant to Section 145.9 of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the 

“Commission”) Regulations under the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, DTCC Data 

Repository (U.S.) LLC (“DDR”) requests that the following DDR policies and procedures being 

submitted to the Commission and the information contained therein (together, the “Documents”), 

be afforded confidential treatment until further notice under the Freedom of Information Act and 

the Commission's Regulations:

Documents:

 DDR Compliance Manual

 DDR Code of Conduct

 DDR Conflict of Interest Resolution Policy

 DDR Financial Resources Procedures

 DDR Access and Onboarding Procedures

 DDR Systems Development and Monitoring Procedures

 DDR Systems Development and Monitoring Policy

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact the undersigned at (212) 855-

3038.

Very truly yours,

Adrienne Z. During

DDR Compliance Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Michael CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50726

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Michael Clark, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In July 2006, John Michael Clark, federal prisoner # 57752-180, was convicted by guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He now appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based upon the crack cocaine amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. In that denial, the district court noted that Clark could not benefit from the crack cocaine amendments because his base offense level would have remained the same even if based solely upon the amount of methamphetamine that was attributed to him.

On appeal, Clark argues that his sentence should have been based solely upon crack cocaine and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him based upon any other controlled substance. He also asserts that the district court violated Amendment 715 to the Sentencing Guidelines by failing to show how it calculated the amount of crack cocaine attributable to him when considering his § 3582(c)(2) motion. These arguments lack merit. Moreover, Clark cannot utilize a § 3582(c)(2) motion to challenge his original sentence. *See United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995).

Examination of the record reveals that the district court correctly concluded that Clark could not benefit from the crack cocaine amendments. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying Clark’s instant motion. *See United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010).

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.
# C_2019288EN.01003902.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/39

---

Order of the President of the of the Court of 12 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — British Airways plc v MF

(C-643/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/50)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this annual report of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. on Form 40-F for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Peter Meredith, Chief Financial Officer of the issuer, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1.

The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.

The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the issuer. Date: March 30, 2005 By:
    /s/ Peter MeredithPeter MeredithChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2357 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2357

  To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to air cargo in 
                  Puerto Rico, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2019

Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to air cargo in 
                  Puerto Rico, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Puerto Rico Air Cargo Industry 
Empowerment Act''.

SEC. 2. CARGO IN ALASKA OR PUERTO RICO.

    Section 41703(e) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading by inserting ``or Puerto 
        Rico'' after ``Alaska''; and
            (2) by inserting ``or Puerto Rico'' after ``Alaska'' each 
        place it appears.
                                 <all>
```