alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see

Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please

also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other

deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the

filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 31,367 

5 MARVIN ELLIS,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Neil C. Candelaria, District Judge

9 Gary K. King, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM

11 Francine A. Chavez, Assistant Attorney General

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 for Appellee

14 Marvin Ellis, Pro Se

15 Santa Rosa, NM

16 Pro Se Appellant

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 FRY, Judge.
2

1 Defendant appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Defendant’s

2 motion for an order requiring the return of currency taken at the time Defendant was

3 arrested on multiple counts of fraud, racketeering, and embezzlement. [RP 227 (This

4 appeal concerns four district court cases that were consolidated on April 1, 2009,

5 citation is to the record proper in CR-07-01759)] We proposed to reverse in a notice

6 of proposed summary disposition. The State has filed a timely notice stating that it

7 will not file a memorandum in opposition to our notice of proposed summary

8 disposition, and Defendant has filed a memorandum in support.

9 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in our notice of proposed summary

10 disposition, we reverse the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for an

11 order requiring the return of $1,700 in currency and Defendant’s wallet which were

12 taken from him at the time of his arrest.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 

15 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

16 WE CONCUR:

17 

18 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
3

1 

2 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
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 September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, 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.







|Dated:  November 12, 2008 | By:  /s/ Ralph M. AmatoRALPH M. AMATO
       Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1984** 

PATRICIA EKWOPI OSONG , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : March 19, 2013 Decided: March 28, 2013

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition d enied in part and dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Gary J. Newkirk, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Patricia Ekwopi Osong, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen as untimely and numerica lly barred. We have reviewed the administrative record and Osong’s contentions, and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2012). We accordingly deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.

See In re: Osong (B.I.A. July 13, 2012). We further find that

we do not have jurisdiction to review Osong’s claim that the Board abused its discretion in declining to reo pen her removal proceedings sua sponte. See Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400

- 01 (4th Cir. 2009). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction over her ineffective assistance of counsel claim because she failed to file a petition for review of the Board’s order of September 12, 2011 addressing that claim. See Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part with respect to these claims.

A ccordingly , we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal cont entions are adequately presented in the3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
EXHIBIT 21


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                         State of Incorporation
<S>                                        <C>
Berry Iowa Corporation                     Delaware
PackerWare Corporation                     Delaware
Knight Plastics, Inc.                      Delaware
Berry Sterling Corporation                 Delaware
Berry Plastics Design Corporation          Delaware
Poly-Seal Corporation                      Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation II  Delaware
Venture Packaging, Inc.                    Delaware
Venture Packaging Midwest, Inc.            Delaware
Berry Plastics Technical Services, Inc.    Delaware
NIM Holdings Limited                       England and Wales
Berry Plastics U.K. Limited                England and Wales
Norwich Acquisition Limited                England and Wales
CPI Holding Corporation                    Delaware
Cardinal Packaging, Inc.                   Ohio
AeroCon, Inc.                              Delaware
Berry Tri-Plas Corporation                 Delaware
Berry Plastics Acquisition Corporation III Delaware
CBP Holdings S.r.l.                        Italy
Capsol S.p.a.                              Italy
Ociesse S.r.l.                             Italy
Pescor Inc.                                Delaware
</TABLE>


="C:\WORK\*" "() OGK Default.dot" "C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\206753.doc"\*
mergeformat C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\206753.doc
# C_2008064EN.01001002.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-387/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Telecommunications sector - Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) - Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Access’ Directive) - Electronic communications networks and services - Fixed and mobile telephone networks - Termination of calls - Incoming traffic - Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation)

(2008/C 64/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of France to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Republic of France to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
# C_2008128EN.01000901.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany)) — Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG v Land Niedersachsen

(Case C-346/06) (1)

1

(Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the context of the provision of services - Procedures for the award of public works contracts - Social protection of workers)

(2008/C 128/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Celle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dirk Rüffert, in his capacity as liquidator of the assets of Objekt und Bauregie GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary reference — Oberlandesgericht Celle (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National legislation requiring undertakings involved in the tendering procedure for public-works contracts to give a commitment that they will comply with, and ensure compliance by their subcontractors with, the provisions on minimum pay prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where the services in question are to be provided.

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, precludes an authority of a Member State, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from adopting a measure of a legislative nature requiring the contracting authority to designate as contractors for public works contracts only those undertakings which, when submitting their tenders, agree in writing to pay their employees, in return for performance of the services concerned, at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement the minimum wage in force at the place where those services are performed.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
ACCEPTED 07-15-00070-CV SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS 7/14/2015 2:04:27 PM Vivian Long, Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                               Amendment to the
            Retainer Continuation Plan for Independent Directors of
                    The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

                            EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 1997


     1.   The first sentence of the text of Section 4.2 is amended to provide as
follows:

     "The Plan Benefit of a Participant who has ceased to serve as an
     Independent Director shall be payable in monthly installments (or in
     installments with such other frequency as is determined by the Committee)
     commencing on the first day of any month designated by the Participant, or
     such other date as is determined by the Committee."
##### 



Exhibit 18.01

January 29, 2003

Board of Directors
Quintiles Transnational Corporation
4709 Creekstone Drive
Durham, NC 27703

Dear Directors:

We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form
10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Companys
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 and issued our
report thereon dated January 29, 2003. Note 19 to the financial statements
describes a change in accounting principle in the Companys application of FASB
Statement No. 109 from an incremental approach to recording deferred taxes
related to the income tax benefit associated with its international,
multi-jurisdictional tax strategies to a strict jurisdictional approach. It
should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of
accounting over another for recording deferred taxes associated with these
strategies has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting literature,
and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on managements
determination that this change in accounting principle is preferable. Based on
our reading of managements stated reasons and justification for this change in
accounting principle in the Form 10-K, and our discussions with management as
to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors relating to the
change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Companys
circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**Exhibit 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Pamela Fredette, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of enherent Corp., certifythat:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of enherent Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Pamela Fredette   Pamela Fredette  Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President  March30, 2006
AGUIRRE v. COURTS OF WILMINGTON.

No. 50P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Rebecca Aguirre, Santa Fe, for Aguirre, Rebecca.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of February 2016 by Petitioner for Petition Requesting Supervisory Control over the Inferior Courts of North Carolina by the North Carolina Supreme Court:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES EARL HINNANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-cr-00185-D)

Submitted: June 30, 2008 Decided: July 10, 2008

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Mark Brannon, HAIRSTON, LANE, BRANNON, PLLC, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellant. George Edward Bell Holding, United States

Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

James Earl Hinnant pled guilty to possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon and was sentenced to the statutory mandatory

minimum for an armed career criminal--180 months. On appeal, his

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues

for appeal, but questioning the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

hearing and the failure of the district court to impose a variance

sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Hinnant has not

filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our review of the record shows that Hinnant’s guilty plea

was knowing and voluntary and taken in compliance with Rule 11.

Regarding his sentence, Hinnant was sentenced to the statutory

mandatory minimum. Absent an appropriate motion by the Government

which was not made in this case, the district court lacked the

authority to sentence Hinnant below the statutory mandatory minimum

sentence. See United States v. Allen, 450 F.3d 565, 568-69 (4th

Cir. 2006). Thus, it was not within the district court’s

discretion to impose a variance sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have independently reviewed

the record in the case and found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
- 3 -

further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
# CE2004078EN.01042301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/423 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/423

---

(2004/C 78 E/0443)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2771/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   European Project Funding for Enable project

Subject:

A representative of Dementia Voice, a partner in the Enable project, funded by the EC has expressed concern about the deficits they have incurred as a result of not yet receiving the balance of their European funding. Despite submitting all their paperwork by the deadline in June this year, they have been informed by the Commission that their project has not yet been processed and they will have to wait until the autumn. They are now in a deficit on this project of about GBP 8 000 which will be reflected in their annual accounts and may have a detrimental effect on applications for other funding.

What plans does the Commission have to improve deficit funding arrangements which are currently making it difficult for small but innovative projects and organisations to manage?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

(29 October 2003)

As far as the Project under consideration is concerned, the payment corresponding to the eligible costs has been made to the project co-ordinator in charge.

The Commission is constantly striving to improve its performance. Within this context and taking into account the strengthened controls put in place in the context of the Reform and the new financial circuits, the Commission is taking substantial measures in order to ensure efficient payment of projects, both in terms of human resources (the services are steadily fulfilling all vacant posts regarding financial management and payments: out of 16 vacant posts, only one still remains vacant) and in terms of rationalisation of the financial management (some measures implemented: on the job intensive training, in addition to the standard requirements; strict implementation of deadlines, both internal and external, i.e. deadlines given to co-ordinators).

---
----

----

|   | CERTIFICATION                PURSUANT TO |
|--------|------------------------------------------|

|   | 18                U.S.C. SECTION 1350 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

|   | AS                ADOPTED PURSUANT TO |
|--------|---------------------------------------|

|   | SECTION                906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF                2002 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a)  The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or                15(d)                of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:                and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b)  The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects,  the financial condition and results of                operations  the Company. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
IN RE R.M.H.

No. COA08-1089.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from New Hanover (06JT27, 06JT28).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.