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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-7191

SALOMON S. LOAYZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.

Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-95-11, CA-98-69-4)

Submitted: December 22, 1999

Decided: January 10, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Salomon S. Loayza, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Mark Salsbury, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Salomon Loayza appeals the district court's order denying his

request for collateral relief from his criminal conviction for mail

fraud. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. However, we disagree with the district

court's reasoning that Loayza's complaint should be construed as

demanding a writ of coram nobis. Rather, Loayza's complaint is properly before the courts as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1999) because he filed the motion while still incarcerated

for the conviction currently challenged, see Carafas v. LaVallee, 391

U.S. 234, 238 (1968), and because the conditions of supervised

release to which Loayza is currently subject are sufficient to satisfy

the "custody" requirement. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236,

243 (1963). Nevertheless, for the reasons stated by the district court,

we agree that Loayza is not entitled to collateral relief.

Accordingly, we deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis,

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal based substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Loayza, Nos. CR-95-11; CA-98-69-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1999).* 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

_________________________________________________________________

*To the extent that Loayza raises new arguments on appeal, we decline

to address them. See Karpel v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 134 F.3d 1222,

1227 (4th Cir. 1998).

 2
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 Commerce Economic Development Administration
 AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
 ACTION: Notice and opportunity for public comment.
 SUMMARY: The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
[4/15/2022 through 5/2/2022]
Firm name
Firm address
Date accepted for investigation
Product(s)Catamount Machine Works, LLC
2804 Sydney Road, Plant City, FL 33566
4/20/2022
The firm manufactures miscellaneous metal parts.United Precision Products Co., Inc
25040 Van Born Road, Dearborn Heights, MI 48125
4/28/2022
The firm manufactures aircraft engine parts.
 Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.8 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms. Bryan Borlik, Director.


[FR Doc. 2022-10039 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, petitioner, v. SANDOZ, INC., et al.

No. 18-21.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), Timothy K. Montgomery, Chief Executive Officer of Ditech
Communications Corporation (the "Company"), and William J. Tamblyn, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his knowledge:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 13th Day of July, 2004.

| | /s/TIMOTHY K. MONTGOMERYTimothy K. Montgomery
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/WILLIAM J. TAMBLYNWilliam J. Tamblyn
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER      

The foregoing certification is not filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure
document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or
after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespectively of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE ex rel. EVA A. SLAYTON v. F. A. WHITTIER.1

July 16, 1909.

Nos. 16,271—(216).

Habeas Corpus.

A judgment entered in proceedings under chapter 285, p. 418, Laws 1905, authorizing the committal of incorrigible minors to the state training school, which recites all necessary jurisdictional facts, cannot be impeached or contradicted collaterally on the writ of habeas corpus.

Appeal from an order of the district court for Goodhue county, *448Williston, J., discharging a writ of habeas corpus directed to F. A. Whittier and requiring him to show cause why he held in detention the person of Genevieve Slayton.

Affirmed.

*Schmidt & Newman,*for appellant.

*George T. Simpson,*Attorney General, *George W. Peterson,*Assistant Attorney General, and *William M. JEricson,*County Attorney, for respondent.

1

 Keported in 122 N. W. 319.

Brown, J.

Genevieve Slayton, under the age of sixteen years, was on the first day of October, 1907, under authority of the provisions of chapter 285, p. 418, Laws 1905, duly committed by the district court of Bamsey county to the state training school at Bed Wing. Thereafter, on March 20, 1909, relator, the foster mother and duly constituted guardian of the said Genevieve, sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the district court of Goodhue county for her release and discharge from custody. Upon the hearing in that court the writ was discharged, and relator appealed.

It is contended by relator that the commitment of her ward was illegal and void, for the reason that no summons or other notice of the proceedings by which the girl was committed was ever issued or served upon relator, as required by section 5 of the act under which the court below proceeded. In her petition for the writ she alleges that this section of the statute was not complied with, and she insists, therefore, that the committing court had no jurisdiction. The return of respondent admits the custody of the girl, and sets out a copy of the judgment of commitment, which recites: “And it appearing that all persons interested have had due notice, * * * it is ordered and adjudged that [she] be” committed, etc. The return also alleges that the relator voluntarily appeared in court at the time of the commitment and took part in those proceedings.

Without stopping to consider whether relator’s presence in court at the time her ward was committed to the school by the court below would obviate the necessity of a formal summons or notice to her, as required by the statute referred to, we dispose of the case on the ground that the recital in the judgment of commitment that due *449notice was given all interested parties cannot be impeached in this collateral proceeding. State v. Sheriff of Hennepin County, 24 Minn. 87; State v. Phillips, 73 Minn. 77, 75 N. W. 1029; State v. Bailey, 106 Minn. 138, 118 N. W. 676. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of one committed to the school, and it recites notice to all others interested. The judgment is therefore fair on its face, and not open to indirect attack.

Order affirmed.
James Arthur BRINSON, petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 18-8157.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Aleksandr L. YUFA, petitioner, v. TSI INCORPORATED.

No. 17-1674.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Timeline, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles R.
Osenbaugh, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (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 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.


/s/ Charles R. Osenbaugh                Date:  August 13, 2003
-----------------------------------
Charles R. Osenbaugh,
President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Timeline, Inc. and will be retained by Timeline, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Mufasa Wilson SEJOUR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-1126.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 11.1

IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES

RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON
SHARE

(Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except for share amounts)

A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share (EPS) is given in the following table:



|                                                            |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- | ------- | -------------------------------- | ---------- | --------------- | - | ----
|                                                            |  | Net Income(unaudited) |         | Sharesoutstanding andequivalents |            | Amount perShare
|Quarter ended June 30, 2008:                                |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS (available to common shareholders)                |  | $                     | 43,120  |                                  | 52,159,646 |                 | $ | 0.83
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 47,450  |                                  | 60,560,764 |                 | $ | 0.78
|Quarter ended June 30, 2007:                                |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 23,594  |                                  | 63,194,240 |                 | $ | 0.37
|Diluted EPS (No effect of preference shares: anti-dilutive) |  | $                     | 23,594  |                                  | 63,210,001 |                 | $ | 0.37
|Six months ended June 30, 2008                              |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 125,689 |                                  | 54,793,624 |                 | $ | 2.29
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 134,253 |                                  | 63,193,486 |                 | $ | 2.12
|Six months ended June 30, 2007                              |  |                       |         |                                  |            |                 |   |     
|Basic EPS                                                   |  | $                     | 96,615  |                                  | 63,445,797 |                 | $ | 1.52
|Diluted EPS                                                 |  | $                     | 105,179 |                                  | 70,979,495 |                 | $ | 1.48
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hanover Compressor
Company (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Chad C.
Deaton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:  (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 contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Chad C. DeatonName:
    
    Chad C. DeatonTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    May 7, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00427-CV

In re Amanda J. Wilhelm

E. B., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY 

NO. C2017-1044D, THE HONORABLE KARIN E. BONICORO, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of E. B. The subject of this 

proceeding is Amanda J. Wilhelm, appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 19, 2018, and his brief was due 

August 2, 2018. On August 24, 2018, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than 

September 4, 2018. To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Amanda J. Wilhelm shall appear in person 

before this Court on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in the Third Court of 

Appeals courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th 

Street, in Austin, Travis County, Texas, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt 

and have sanctions imposed for her failure to obey our August 24, 2018 order. This order to 
2

show cause will be withdrawn and Wilhelm will be relieved of her obligation to appear before 

this Court as ordered above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or before 

September 24, 2018.

It is ordered on September 11, 2018. 

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John E. Jackson, certify that: 1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A-2 of Hanover
Compressor Company; 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 officers 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 we 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 officers 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: April 5, 2004 By:
    
    /s/ John E. JacksonName:
    
    John E. JacksonTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2019162EN.01000101.xml

| 10.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2017-2018 SESSION

Sitting of 12 March 2018

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 377, 18.10.2018.

TEXTS ADOPTED

2018-2019 SESSION

Sittings of 13 to 15 March 2018

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 377, 18.10.2018.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Johnny Edward McMAHON, petitioner, v. Dwight NEVEN, Warden, et al.

No. 17-9313.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.35

Order To Convert

The Promissory Note ‘Holder’, Julios Kosta hereby instructs the ‘Maker’ to convert to common shares (stock) of the ‘Maker’, Bravo Multinational Incorporated, ‘three’ Promissory Notes (plus accrued interest) originally dated October 3rd, 3rd, and 11th, 2016 with original principle face values owed to the ‘holder’ in the amounts of $239,261.26, $36,497.40, and $160,000 as per the terms of conversion as mutually agreed to and as stipulated by the Board of Directors on November 19th,2018. The shares will electronically deposit into an account in the ‘Holders’ name at the transfer agent of the ‘Maker’, Transfer Online Inc., located in Portland Oregon. The ‘Holder’ acknowledges that the shares are to be issued as restricted, but said shares are not subject to any further holding period (under Rule 144) as the original dates on the Promissory Notes have been sufficiently aged, and the company shall provide written confirmation of this and irrevocable release authorization to the transfer agent. Furthermore, no fees and or costs shall be incurred by the current ‘holder’ for the conversion and issuance of the shares.  

Shares to be issued: Effective date November 19th, 2018

1,417,314 common shares (stock)

216,247    common shares (stock)

709,580    common shares (stock)   

 

Dated and signed on November 27th, 2018

/s/ Julios Kosta

‘Holder’: Julios Kosta

 

 /s/ Rich Kaiser

Acknowledgment by ‘Maker’: 

Rich Kaiser, Acting CFO

Bravo Multinational Incorporated