alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aaron TABLEROS-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40797

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*405Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Aaron Tableros-Montoya (Ta-bleros) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Tableros has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.

*

 Pursuant to 5tii Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of Michael R. Kinnie, Licensee for Comedy Playhouse, LLC, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[881 NYS2d 771]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County [Hugh A. Gilbert, J.], entered September 18, 2008) to annul a determination of respondent. The determination found that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6).

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously modified on the law and the amended petition is granted in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) on January 6, 2007 and by vacating the penalty and as modified the determination is confirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to respondent for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination that he violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) on two separate occasions. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination that he suffered or permitted gambling on the licensed premises on October 6, 2006 is supported by substantial evidence *(see*§ 106 [6]; *Matter of Shorts Bar of Rochester Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*17 AD3d 1101, 1102 [2005]). Respondent “ ‘demonstrated that [petitioner] had knowledge or the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge of the alleged acts’ ” *(Matter of Island Mermaid Rest. Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*52 AD3d 603, *1153604 [2008], quoting *Matter of Leake v Sarafan,*35 NY2d 83, 86 [1974]). We agree with petitioner, however, that the determination that he suffered or permitted an excessive amount of noise to occur on the licensed premises on January 6, 2007 is not supported by substantial evidence. The record contains no evidence of recent complaints concerning noise from area residents, no objective proof that the noise exceeded acceptable volume levels, and no indication that anyone was affected by the noise *(see 530 W. 28th St. LP v New York State Liq. Auth.,*55 AD3d 436 [2008]; *Matter of Culture Club of NYC v New York State Liq. Auth.,*294 AD2d 204 [2002]).

We therefore modify the determination and grant the amended petition in part by annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) on January 6, 2007. Inasmuch as respondent imposed a single penalty and the record does not establish any relation between the violations and the penalty, we further modify the determination by vacating the penalty, and we remit the matter to respondent for imposition of an appropriate penalty on the remaining violation *(see Matter of Continental Room, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*52 AD3d 1203, 1205 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Green, JJ.
Tyrell GRIMES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6051.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 30, Misc.

#### Illinois ex rel. Marino *v.*Ragen, Warden, 336 U. S. 969.

Rehearing denied.
| **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 02--002 | **Request of the Kansas City Board of     Trade for Approval of Amendments** |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **to Its Hard Red Winter Wheat Futures     Contract Lowering the Price** |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Discount for Delivery of U.S. No. 3     Hard Red Winter Wheat, and** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Modifying the Maximum Permissible     Amount of Wheat of Other Classes** |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **Deliverable as U.S. No. 3 Hard Red     Winter Wheat** |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------|

| FR CITE: | 67 FR 3881 (January 28, 2002) |
|----------|-------------------------------|

| CLOSES: | 2/12/02 |
|---------|---------|

| EXTENDED: | LINK TO FILE: | http://ww |
|-----------|---------------|-----------|

|  | **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 02--001 | **Request of the Chicago Board of Trade     (CBOT) for Product Approval of** |
|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | **CBOT X-Fund Futures** |
|--|-------------------------|

| FR CITE: | 67 FR (January 10, 2002) |
|----------|--------------------------|

| CLOSES: | 1/25/02 |
|---------|---------|

| EXTENDED: | LINK TO FILE: | http://ww |
|-----------|---------------|-----------|

|  | **------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
Previous
Next
Last
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<CIK>                           0000860744  
<NAME>                          GEODYNE INST/PENSION ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP P-4
                                 
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                             164,373
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      173,447
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   337,820
<PP&E>                           8,180,022
<DEPRECIATION>                   7,081,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,436,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    0
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                       1,436,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,436,004
<SALES>                            557,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   576,388
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      300,774
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    275,614
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                275,614
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                       275,614
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         2.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        
 

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2


                                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                    -------------------------------



Board of Directors
Creative Host Services, Inc.
San Diego, California

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
102869 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement 333-90630 on Form S-8 of Creative
Host Services, Inc. of our Independent Auditors Report dated March 15, 2002,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Creative Host Services, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2002.





/s/  Stonefield  Josephson,  Inc.

Santa Monica, California
April 11, 2003
xcom-ex104_522.htm



Exhibit 10.4

Extension to the
Master Manufacturing Agreement

between

Xtera Communications, Inc.

and

NSG Technology, Inc.

 

This Extension to the Master Manufacturing Agreement (“Extension”) is entered into as of January 1-, 2016 and is by and between Xtera Communications, Inc. (“Xtera”) with a place of business at 500 W. Bethany Drive, Suite 100, Allen, TX  75013 and NSG Technology, Inc. (“NSG”) with a place of business at 1705 Junction Court, Suite 200, San Jose, CA  95112.

The parties wish to extend for three years the Master Manufacturing Agreement dated January 1, 2013 (“Master Agreement”).

The Master Agreement will continue for a period of three years commencing on January 1, 2016.  

All other terms and conditions of the Master Agreement remain the same.  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Extension to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date first written above.  

 


	
 
	
 
	
Xtera Communications, Inc.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 Date Signed:  May 10, 2016
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Paul J Colan

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Paul J Colan

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer




 


	
 
	
 
	
NSG Technology, Inc.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date Signed:  May 10, 2016
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Ted D Dubbs

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Ted D Dubbs

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Senior Vice President




 

 

10109907.1
Ari BAILEY, petitioner, v. J. Patricia SMOOT, Chair, United States Parole Commission, et al.

No. 15-1217.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7851 

EARL THOMAS, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cv-01484)

Submitted: April 26, 2007 Decided: May 1, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Thomas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 Certification of Controller
Pursuant to Section 302 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002 I, Kenneth C. Osowski, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First
Federal Capital Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Kenneth C. OsowskiKenneth C. OsowskiVice President and Controller
 35
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15077]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 48-2000]


Proposed Subzone Status--Komatsu America International Co. 
(Construction Equipment) Chattanooga, TN; Amendment of Application

    Notice is hereby given that the application of the Chattanooga 
Chamber Foundation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 134, for special-
purpose subzone status for the manufacturing facilities (construction 
equipment) of Komatsu America International Company in Chattanooga, 
Tennessee (Doc. 48-2000, 65 FR 50178, 8/17/2000), has been amended to 
add a second site (100,000 sq. ft.) in Chattanooga. The additional site 
is located at 1408 Hamill Street. The application otherwise remains 
unchanged.
    The comment period is reopened until July 5, 2001. Submissions 
(original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive 
Secretary at the address below.
    A copy of the application and the amendment and accompanying 
exhibits are available for public inspection at the following 
locations:

Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zone Board, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Room 4008, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW,Washington, DC 20230.
U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 601 West Summit 
Hill Drive, Suite 300, Knoxville, TN 37902.

    Dated: June 6, 2001.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15077 Filed 6-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00094

- CR

J AMES R AY G REGORY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1505100D )

January 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial co ur t’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Mike Wallach

__________________ Justice Mike Wallach
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Larry Kristof, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mantra Venture Group
      Ltd. for the period ended February 28, 2011 (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 Mantra Venture Group Ltd.                                                                    

Dated: April 19, 2011

| | /s/ Larry Kristof                                                  
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Larry
      Kristof                                                
| | President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
      Financial Officer, 
| | Secretary, Treasurer and Director                                  
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer and
| | Principal Accounting Officer)                                      
| | MANTRA VENTURE GROUP LTD.                                          

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 Mantra Venture
Group Ltd. and will be retained by Mantra Venture Group Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
**Exhibit 31.1**Written Certification of Chief Executive OfficerI, James J. Leto, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GTSI Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrants’ internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:August 14, 2007/s/ JAMES J. LETO
# FCM Data December 2010

SELECTED FCM FINANCIAL DATA AS OF December 31,&KFF0000 &K0000002010FROM REPORTS FILED BY February 10,&KFF0000 &K0000002011	&P of &N