alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge **

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 7, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDGAR DAVID OLIVAFREDERICH, also known as Jose

Santiago Gonzales,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 06-2330

(D.C. No. CR-06-1885 JP)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-Appellant Edgar David Oliva-Frederich filed the instant appeal

after he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for violation of a condition

of his supervised release, which was previously imposed by the district court in

the Western District of Texas. Specifically, Mr. Oliva-Frederich violated his
- 2 -

supervised release when he entered the United States without obtaining the

express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to do so. The district

court ordered the two-month sentence for violation of supervised release to run

consecutively with the thirty-seven month sentence imposed for the underlying

offense of illegal reentry. Finding no potentially meritorious issues for appeal,

counsel for Mr. Oliva-Frederich has filed an Anders brief and requests to

withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Oliva-Frederich

has been served with copies of the Anders brief and has failed to respond. 

Because Mr. Oliva-Frederich knowingly and voluntarily admitted to being

in the United States without permission, see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742,

755-56 (1970), and the sentence imposed was reasoned and reasonable, see United

States v. Tedford, 405 F.3d 1159, 1161 (10th Cir. 2005), we DISMISS this appeal

and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I, Lewis
Fan, Chief Financial Officer (principal executive officer) of China-Biotics,
Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2009 of the Registrant (the “Report”):





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of The
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/
      Lewis FanLewis
      FanChief
      Financial OfficerAugust 14,
      2009
Johnny KIRKLAND, Petitioner, v. HUNTINGTON INGALLS, INCORPORATED.

No. 19-5173

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

*569Petition for rehearing denied.
STATE of North Carolina v. William Winston TOWNSEND.

No. 646P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

William Winston Townsend, Pro Se.

W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of December 2003 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32004R0029

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2004 of 8 January 2004 adopting the specifications of the 2005 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98***Official Journal L 005 , 09/01/2004 P. 0057 - 0060*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2004

of 8 January 2004

adopting the specifications of the 2005 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 of 9 March 1998 on the organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community(1), and in particular Article 4(2) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 246/2003(2) adopting the 2004 to 2006 programme of ad hoc modules to the labour force sample survey, includes an ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life.

(2) In accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 577/98 the detailed list of information to be collected in an ad hoc module must be drawn up at least 12 months before the beginning of the reference period for that module.

(3) There is a need for a comprehensive and comparable set of data on reconciliation between work and family life, as referred to in the EU gender policy objectives on employment indicated in the 2003 Employment Guidelines with the specific guideline on "Gender equality" as adopted by the Council on 22 July 2003(3).

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Statistical Programme Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The detailed list of information to be collected in 2005 by the ad hoc module is set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 January 2004.

For the Commission

Pedro Solbes Mira

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2257/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 336, 23.12.2003, p. 6).

(2) OJ L 34, 11.2.2003, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 197, 5.8.2003, p. 13.

ANNEX

LABOUR FORCE SURVEY

Specifications of the 2005 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life

1. Member States and regions concerned: all.

2. The variables will be coded as follows:

>TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. John Fred GAITHER.

No. 641P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Rudolph A. Ashton, III, for John Fred Gaither.

Tina A. Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, John Carriker, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Prior report: 161 N.C.App. 96, 587 S.E.2d 505.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of December 2003 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
Mitchell STEVENS, Petitioner, v. Darrell VANNOY, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6779

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey Henry, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.            Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report
under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and
15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association.



| | By:    | /s/ Corey Henry                                                                          | 
| | ------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Name:  | Corey Henry                                                                             
| | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor
| |        | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)                           
| | Date:  | March 30, 2020
# Official Journal C 83/6 Ap

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 83 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 496 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 83

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 496 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 083/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 083/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4151 — Orica/Dyno) (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 083/3 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (1) | 3 |
| 2006/C 083/4 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 10 |
| 2006/C 083/5 | Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Imposition of public service obligations on scheduled air services within Italy | 12 |
| 2006/C 083/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4160 — ThyssenKrupp/EADS/Atlas) (1) | 14 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 083/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 083/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4151 — Orica/Dyno) (1)

2

2006/C 083/3

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (1)

3

2006/C 083/4

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

10

2006/C 083/5

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Imposition of public service obligations on scheduled air services within Italy

12

2006/C 083/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4160 — ThyssenKrupp/EADS/Atlas) (1)

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Tom DOMINGO, Sr., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al.

No. 19-738

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 26, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 438 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on July 25, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-231057) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	 	Gerardo Cipriano
	 	Vice President
Sammy Redi ARAYA, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9755

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Carl Edward LYONS v. WAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

No. 99P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 1, 2004.

Carl Edward Lyons, Pro Se.

Ann B. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 1st day of March 2004 in this matter for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the superior court, Wake County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of April 2004."
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Managed High Income Portfolio Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Smith Barney Managed High Income Inc. (the "Fund") for the
year ended February 28, 1998, we considered its internal control,
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection
of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is
subject to the risk that it may become inadequate because of
changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being
audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by
employees in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions.  However, we noted no matters involving the internal
control and its operation, including controls for safeguarding
securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



April 24, 1998
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

October 7, 2015

Hon. Luis V. Saenz

District Attorney

964 E. Harrison

Brownsville, TX 78520

- 7123

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Edmund K. Cyganiewicz

Attorney At Law

1000 E. Madison St.

Brownsville, TX 78520

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00675

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 2014

- DCR

- 215

- E

Style: Edgar Garces Diaz v. The State of Texas

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.
# CE2004078EN.01065102.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/651

---

(2004/C 78 E/0693)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3827/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Funding for the network of Carrefours and Info-Points

Subject:

The European network of Carrefours and Info-Points Europe recently publicly protested at the decision of the Directorate-General for Press and Communication of 29 September to cancel the annual allocation of EUR 20 000 for Carrefours and Info-Points Europe and its proposal merely to maintain collaboration in distributing documentation, training and running helpdesks. They complained that this ‘unilateral decision, taken without any consultation and at such short notice’ would affect the budget and activities of all the structures involved.

Can the Commission therefore say what measures it is considering in order to take account of the commitments already made by these organisations, bearing in mind the promise that funding would be maintained until the end of 2004?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

(3 February 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-3007/03 by Mr Santini (1)

1

---

(1)  See page 448.

1

---
# C_2018290EN.01000202.xml

| 17.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9018 — Cerberus Group/WFS Global Holding)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 290/04)

On 8 August 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9018. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9018. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . P D - 1704- 07 JAM ES F I C A R R O , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS O N R EH EA R I N G O F A PPE LL A N T ’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE THI RTEENTH CO URT O F AP PEALS

NUECES CO UNTY P ercur iam . O P I N I O N A p p e llan t w a s c o n v icte do f in d e c e n c yw ith a c h ild . T h e ju rya ss e ss e dh is p u n is h m e n t a t c o n f

in e m e n t f

o r t e n y e a rs , p ro b a te df

o r t e n y e a rs , a n da f

in e o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e C o u rto f

A p p e a ls a f

f irm e dth e c o n v ic tio n . Fi carr o v. State , No . 1 3 - 0 3 - 0 0 4 3 9 - CR ( T ex. A pp. — C orpus C hr i s t i , del i ver ed A pr i l 26, 2007 ) . A ppel l ant ’ s pet i t i on for di s cr et i onaryr evi ew w as di s m i s s ed as unt i m el yfi l ed on D ece m ber5, 2007. A ppel l antF i c ar ro-2 has fi l ed a mot i on forr ehear i ng r eques t i ng r ei ns t at ementof hi s pet i t i on s o thati tw i l l be cons i der ed bythi s C ourt . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forr ehear i ng i s gr ant ed. H i s pet i t i on fi l ed o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 , is re in sta ted a s o f F e b ru a ry1 3 , 2 0 0 8 a n dw illb e c o n sid e re din acc or d w i th T ex. R . A pp. P. 68.

D el i ver ed February13, 2008 D o n ot publi sh