alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2459

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ruben Montelongo Garza

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: January 7, 2014

Filed: January 10, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ruben Montelongo Garza pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United

States having been previously deported after an aggravated felony conviction, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced him at the

1

bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range to 57 months in prison. On appeal, his

counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the court erred by using Garza’s 1992 attempted murder

conviction to support a 16-level enhancement to his offense level, and that the

sentence was excessive. Garza has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on

appeal.

After careful review, we hold that the district court properly included Garza’s

1992 conviction when calculating his offense level and criminal history category. 

Although Garza was arrested in 2011, he illegally reentered the United States no later

than April 1998. See United States v. Delgado-Hernandez, 646 F.3d 562, 567 (8th

Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (illegal reentry is ongoing offense that begins on date of

reentry). The sentence for his 1992 conviction was imposed within 15 years of the

commencement of the instant offense, and thus was properly used in determining his

offense level and criminal history category. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A),

4A1.1(a), 4A1.2(e)(1).

We further hold that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable, because

the district court properly weighed the relevant factors and sentenced Garza at the

bottom of the correctly calculated Guidelines range. See Delgado-Hernandez, 646

F.3d at 568 (appellate review ofsubstantive reasonableness ofsentence is narrow and

deferential; appellate court may apply presumption of reasonableness to withinGuidelines-range sentence).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
conviction and sentence, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and deny Garza’s

motion for appointment of counsel.

______________________________

-3-
STATE of North Carolina v. Prince McBRIDE.

No. 564P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2005.

Keischa M. Lovelace, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Prince McBride.

Emery E. Milliken, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of October 2005 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 1st day of December 2005."
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00456-CR

Willie Earnest Seals IV

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

440th District Court of Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-25829

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 16, 2021
**Exhibit 4.1  **

 

|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | **PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP/s.r.l./s.e.n.c.r.l.Chartered Accountants**Place de la Cité, Tour Cominar2640 Laurier Boulevard, Suite 1700Québec, QuebecCanada G1V 5C2Telephone +1 (418) 522 7001Facsimile +1 (418) 522 5663 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

  We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc.  (the "Company") of our report dated May 14, 2009 relating to the financial statements and the  effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on  Form 40-F.

 

**Chartered Accountants**

  Quebec, Quebec, Canada  May 14, 2009 

 

 

 

 

 

“PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP/s.r.l./s.e.n.c.r.l., an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context  requires, the PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each of which is a separate and independent legalentity.
exv10w54



 






Exhibit 10.54




2006 Cash Bonus Plan




     On June 9, 2005, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Landec Corporation (the “Company”)
approved the performance criteria and structure for cash bonuses that may be awarded to employees
of the Company and its subsidiaries for the 2006 fiscal year (the “Plan”). These arrangements are
not contained in a formal written plan, but a summary of the manner in which cash bonuses will be
determined for fiscal year 2006 is set forth below.



     Employees of the Company and its subsidiaries may earn cash bonuses based upon the achievement
of separate income and revenue targets for the Company, Apio, Inc. and Landec Ag, Inc. Bonuses are
calculated by multiplying a percentage of each participant’s base salary by the percentage of the
aggregate performance goals that is attained. The percentage of base salary used to determine each
participant’s cash bonus payment ranges from 40% to 100% of base salary for executive officers and
from 7% to 65% for other employees. Participants must attain a minimum percentage of the aggregate
performance goals to receive a bonus under the Plan and a bonus may not exceed a participant’s base
salary. Also, participants must be employed by the Company or one of its subsidiaries at the time
that bonuses are paid. Bonus payments, if any, will be made in single lump sum cash payments as
soon as practicable after the end of the Company’s fiscal year.
Exhibit 4.4      CONSENT OF ANTOINE YASSA   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101  Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2009 (the Technical Study) concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Technical Study are summarized under the heading Item III  Description of the Business  Coulon Property  3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein).  I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,    /s/  Antoine YassaName:  Antoine Yassa, P.Geo.      May 14, 2012
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           MARKWEST HYDROCARBON,  INC.
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                   NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                       TYPE OF ENTITY                           RELATIONSHIP
                   ------------------                       --------------                           ------------
<S>     <C>                                        <C>                                          <C>
1)      MarkWest Michigan, Inc.                    Colorado Corporation                         Wholly-owned subsidiary
 
2)      West Shore Processing Company LLC          Michigan Limited Liability Company           Wholly-owned subsidiary
 
3)      Basin Pipeline LLC                         Michigan Limited Liability Company           Wholly-owned subsidiary
 
4)      MarkWest Resources, Inc.                   Colorado Corporation                         Wholly-owned subsidiary
 
5)      155 Inverness, Inc.                        Colorado Corporation                         Wholly-owned subsidiary
</TABLE>
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section                15(d), as applicable, 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                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/              Joseph              E. Bernstein |
|---------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:                                                   | Joseph                E. Bernstein |
| Title:                                                  | Acting                Chief Executive Officer |
| Date:                                                   | November                19, 2007 |
|                                                    |   |

|   | (1) | A                signed original of this written statement required by Section 906                has been                provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and will be retained by Catskill                Litigation Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission                or its staff upon request. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT
31.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION


1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





I,
Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of INTERNATIONAL CONSOLIDATED
COMPANIES, INC.





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly
report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;





4.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:





(a)           designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;





(b)           evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





(c)           presented
in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):





(a)           all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





(b) any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls; and





6.           The
Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Dated:
May 20,
2008





/s/ Antonio F. Uccello,
III


Antonio
F. Uccello, III


Chief
Financial Officer
STATE v. CARY.

No. COA04-1502.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 99
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                         FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE II

                              ALLSTAR SYSTEMS, INC.
                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                             AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999
                                 (In Thousands)


<S>                                                    <C>          <C>        <C>         <C>       <C>     <C>
                                                     Balance at   Charges to   Charge to
                                                      Beginning   Costs and      Other       Other          Balance at
                    Description                        of Year     Expenses    Accounts     Changes         End of year

Accumulated provision deducted from related assets on balance sheet:
         Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable:
              1997                                     $   219     $   386        (66)     $  (290)  (A)     $   249
              1998                                         249       3,410                  (3,301)  (A)         358
              1999                                         358         916                  (1,046)  (A)         228
         Inventory reserves:
              1997                                     $   111     $   456                 $  (551)  (A)     $    16
              1998                                          16       1,900                  (1,916)  (A)           0
              1999                                           0         512                    (511)  (A)           1
Reserves other than those deducted from assets on balance sheet:
         Allowance for doubtful vendor accounts receivable:
              1997                                     $   200     $   198                 $   (49)  (A)     $   349
              1998                                         349       1,049                  (1,243)  (A)         155
              1999                                         155       1,270                  (1,117)  (A)         308
<FN>
(A) Reductions related to amounts written off.
</FN>
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Guy Tobias LeGRANDE.

No. 462A01-11.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Guy Tobias LeGrande, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd day of April 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Stanly County, the following order was entered and *277is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,628
<SECURITIES>                                   604,498
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,913
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               976,424
<PP&E>                                       1,412,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                 839,874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,951,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          525,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,314
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,260,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,951,211
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,434,619
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,808,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                527,945
<INCOME-TAX>                                   196,038
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            331,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   331,907
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54


</TABLE>
# L_2016270EN.01000101.xml

| 5.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1766

of 26 September 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Korčulansko maslinovo ulje (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Korčulansko maslinovo ulje’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 26 September 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 187, 26.5.2016, p. 21.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---