alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40248

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH WILLIAMS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-94-CV-615

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Williams filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or

correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Williams did not show that he was incompetent or that the

evidence before the district court raised a bona fide doubt about

his competency. Enriquez v. Procunier, 752 F.2d 111, 113 (5th

Cir. 1984) (§ 2254 case), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1126 (1985);

Flugence v. Butler, 848 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 2254
No. 95-40248

-2-

case). Williams's self-serving assertion that he had been

promised a downward departure from the guidelines in exchange for

his guilty plea, is completely at odds with the signed plea

agreement and the transcript of rearraignment. Williams has not

shown that his counsel's conduct fell below an objective standard

of reasonableness, and that he was prejudiced by the deficient

performance. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-58 (1985). 

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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Tuesday, May 10, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *https://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: April 11, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-08191 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,363,808
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,510
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,542,050
<PP&E>                                      45,382,342
<DEPRECIATION>                            (41,229,029)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,695,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          520,742
<BONDS>                                      1,654,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,520,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,695,363
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               746,547
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               819,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (111,725)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,725)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                   [SAMUEL T. KANTOS & ASSOCIATES LETTERHEAD]



                                 April 27, 1999


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



         We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form 10-K
or our reports as follows regarding Herold Marketing Associates, Inc.:

1.  December 31, 1996 Audited Financial Statements dated April 23, 1999.
2.  December 31, 1997 & 1998 Audited Financial Statements dated 
    February 10, 1999.

in the financial statement schedules of Virtual Technology Corporation.

                                              
                                              Sincerely,
                                              /s/ SAMUEL T. KANTOS & ASSOCIATES
                                              ---------------------------------
                                                  Samuel T. Kantos,
                                                  Certified Public Accountant
Juan Alejandro RODRIGUEZ CUYA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8660.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Victor LEJI, petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 17-5150.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
In Re Nathanael Lenard REYNOLDS, petitioner.

No. 17-5008.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
General Observations

 Diversity of the Special Entity group should be kept in mind as rules are crafted. Even within the 

public pension community there is a broad range of resources and investment approaches.

Background information on the industry.

 Coordination of SEC and CFTC is important. 

 Timing of rulemaking is important. Due deliberation required, but early clarity desirable.

Basic Principles

 Concerned over any treatment that will result in Special Entities having higher costs or less 

market access than non-Special Entities.

 Not the topic for discussion on August 12, but the delineation of transactions to be conducted 

on exchanges or swap execution facilities will impact significantly the specific issues identified 

below.

Specific Issues of interest

 What will distinguish an advisory relationship?

 What is the definition of “independent representative.” Will investment staff qualify and under 

what circumstances?

 What will qualify as a “reasonable basis” for determining that an independent representative 

meets prescribed requirements?

 What will constitute “appropriate disclosure” by an independent representative?

 Further clarity on “primary purpose of hedging commercial risk of the plan?”

 Will margin and other requirements be uniform for Special and non-Special Entities? Types of 

collateral that may be posted?

 In general are there rules or requirements being contemplated that will not be uniform for 

Special and non-Special Entities?
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Jon Corzine (MF Global)
  
    



  When
              12/08/2010

  Rulemaking(s)
              VI. Segregation and Bankruptcy

  CFTC Staff
              Bart ChiltonClay Pederson

  Visitor(s)
              Jon Corzine (MF Global)

  Organization(s)
              MF Global


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Glen DeWayne LEE, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-7442.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
Darnell Lee HUEY, petitioner, v. KANSAS

Steven Howard Weis, petitioner, v. Kansas; Anthony E. Griffin, petitioner, v. Kansas; Jesse Villa, petitioner, v. Kansas; and Joshua Harold Watkins, petitioner, v. Kansas.

No. 17-7282.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

*2674Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas denied.
John J. DIERLAM, petitioner, v. Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al.

No. 17-152.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### John Welch, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion filed April 3,1929.

*456W. *P. Chavous*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Fred H. Davis,*Attorney General, and *Boy Campbell,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

In this ease the plaintiff in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Dixie County upon a charge of larceny of a cow. The principal question raised in this court is whether or not the trial court erred in denying a motion for a new trial upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.

There is some evidence to show that the cow in question was the property of the person from whom it was alleged to have been stolen. The record discloses that this particular person turned a cow out on the range and some months later a cow which that person and other witnesses testified was the same cow, was found in the open possession of the plaintiff in error. That the plaintiff in error knew for some weeks before the cow was found by the alleged owner in his possession that such alleged owner was looking for such a cow and there is no evidence to indicate that he made any effort to hide, conceal or get rid of the cow, but continued to openly claim the cow as his property.

The record further discloses that the plaintiff in error traded for a certain cow from one Joe Smith several years prior to the dates involved in this transaction and that the cow which he bought from Joe Smith strayed off from his range. That he afterwards found the cow which he identified as the cow which he bought from Joe Smith, and which' was identified by several other witnesses as the cow he bought from Joe Smith, at a place distant from his range and of practically the same distance from the range of the alleged owner.of the alleged stolen cow. That he took the cow home and then marked her and dehorned her.

*457When the evidence is all fairly considered we think that it does not measure up to that degree of strength and certainty which is required to sustain a verdict of guilt and that the ends of justice would have been best subserved by' the granting of a new trial and for this reason the judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40571 Summary Calendar

RUBIK ATAMIAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

- PAN AMERICAN; CYNTHIA BROWN; HAVIDAN RODRIGUEZ; GUY BAILEY,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas U S D C No. 7:15

- CV

- 365

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Rubik Atamian, formerly a tenured professor at University of Texas

– Pan American (UTPA), sued when, after the legislature abolished UTPA and created a new university (“UTRGV”), he was not h ired at UTRGV. The district court entered a final judgment on March 5, 2018. Atamian timely filed a motion for new trial which was denied on May 10, 2018. It is undisputed that

* 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 May 15, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40571 Document: 00514957657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019No. 18

- 40571

2 the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was June 11, 2018 (June 9 was a
S aturday), but no notice of appeal was filed before June 13, 2018.
Atamian filed a “Motion for Leave to File Notice of Appeal” on June 15, 2018, claiming “excusable neglect” under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 4(a)(5). He asserted that, altho ugh notice of the new trial motion’s denial was properly sent to the email provided to the district court and received by his lawyer’s firm, when it was internally forwarded to the lawyer himself, it landed in “junk mail,” and was therefore overlooked. The district court denied that motion, declining to find excusable neglect, and Atamian timely appealed that denial. Thus, while we can review the issue of the district court’s refusal to find “excusable neglect,” if we do not reverse that decision,
we l ack jurisdiction over the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2107. We have considered the parties’ briefing on this issue and the district court’s order. We conclude that Atamian has failed to show reversible error in the denial of Atamian’s FRAP 4(a)(5) motion. Acco rdingly, we AFFIRM that order and DISMISS the remainder of the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Case: 18-40571 Document: 00514957657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2019
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund II, L.P.Date:May 7, 2009
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 The Board
of Directors and Stockholders
 Audible,
Inc.:
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-91107 and 333-110210) on Form S-8, (Nos. 333-45470, 333-119610 and
333-120588) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-85286) on Forms S-3 and S-3/A of Audible,
Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2005, with respect to the balance sheets of
Audible, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2004, and the related statements of
operations, stockholders’ (deficit) equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and our report dated April 29,
2005, with respect to management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Audible,
Inc.
 
 Our
report dated April 29, 2005, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, expresses our opinion
that Audible, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, because of the effect of material weaknesses
on the achievement of the objectives of the control criteria and contains an
explanatory paragraph that states that material weaknesses were identified in
the following areas: accounting for retail promotion programs, accounting for
royalty costs and the financial reporting process.
 
 
 /s/ KPMG
LLP
 
 
 
 Short
Hills, New Jersey
 April 29,
2005
Pamela DUARTE, petitioner, v. Michael Edward NOLAN, et al.

No. 17-5209.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                  528,316    
<SECURITIES>                                                  0    
<RECEIVABLES>                                            52,667    
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0    
<INVENTORY>                                                   0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0    
<PP&E>                                                    2,917    
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        7,164,150    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0    
<BONDS>                                                       0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0    
<PREFERRED>                                               1,043    
<COMMON>                                                 16,683    
<OTHER-SE>                                            6,411,653    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          7,164,150    
<SALES>                                                       0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              0    
<CGS>                                                         0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0    
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0    
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0    
<CHANGES>                                                     0    
<NET-INCOME>                                                  0    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0    
                                                      


</TABLE>
# C_2005111EN.01000101.xml

| 11.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/1

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on market access

(2005/C 111/01)

The Agreement between the European Community and the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on market access (1) entered into force on 31 March 2005, the procedures provided for in Article 6 of the Agreement having been completed on 31 March 2005.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 75, 22.3.2005, p. 37.

1

---