alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A R I A B A L I C A T O L I V E R O S ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71512 A ge nc yN os . A 047- 872- 565

A 047- 872- 566 A 047- 872- 567 A 047- 872- 568 A 047- 872- 569 A 047- 872- 570 ME MOR AN DU M * O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar i aB a l i c a tO l i ve r os and he rf i ve daught e r s , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of the P hi l i pp i nes, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) o r d e rd e n y in g th e irm o tio n to r e o p e n b a s e do n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l. 

# FI LED JU L 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71512 2 W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 32 1 F . 3d88 9, 89 4 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) , an dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pe t i t i one r s ’ S e pt e m be r30, 2008, m ot i on t o r e ope n a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e i tw a s f i l e d ove rthr e e y e ar s a f

t e rthe B I A ’s f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 U . S . C . § 1229a ( c ) ( 7) ( C ) ( i ) ( ge ne r a l l y , am ot i on t o reopen m ustbe fi l ed w i thi n 9 0 d ay s of f i nal order of re m ov al ), and p et i t i on er s d idn o t s h o w th e yw e r e e n title dto e qu itab le to llin g , s e e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 32 1 F . 3dat 89 7 (deadl i ne for f

i l i ng m ot i on t o reopen can be equit abl y t ol l ed “ w hen a pet i t i on er i s pr e ve nt e d f

r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud, ore rr or , a s l ong a s the pet i t i on erac t s w i th d ue di l i gence”) . I n l i ghtof

thi s di s pos i t i on, pe t i t i one r s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i on i s unava i l i ng. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
TELEBANC FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 -----------------------------------------------
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                      -------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Years Ended December 31,
                                                                           ------------------------
                                                                      1997                          1996
                                                                      ----                          ----
                         BASIC
                         -----
<S>                                                               <C>                           <C>       
Net income for basic earnings per common share                    $    3,671                    $    2,552

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
     during the year                                                   2,191                         2,050

Basic  earnings per common share                                  $     1.68                    $     1.25

                        DILUTED
                        -------
Net income for diluted earngings per share                        $    4,217                    $    2,552

Weighted average number of shares used in calculating
     diluted earngings per share                                       2,191                         2,050
Add incremental shares representing:
Dilutive shares issuable upon exercise of stock options
     and warrants                                                        642                           153
                                                                   ---------                    ----------
Weighted average number of shares used in calculating
     fully diluted income per share                                    2,833                         2,203

Fully diluted income per common share                              $    1.49                    $     1.16

</TABLE>
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

In February 2014, our board of directors formed a special committee, composed entirely of all of our independent directors, pursuant to which
we have paid the chair of the committee (Mr. Turner) $10,000 per month and each other member $5,000 per month since such date of formation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              28
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,258
<PP&E>                                         447,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 406,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,296
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                           168
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   406,071
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,310
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   239
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,963
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,963
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10524

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GABRIEL HUERTA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:95-CR-76-1-C

--------------------

November 7, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On appeal from the denial of a “Motion Under Rule of

Lenity,” filed by Gabriel Huerta, federal prisoner No. 38965-115,

we remanded to the district court for a determination whether the

belated filing of the notice of appeal was due to excusable

neglect or good cause. United States v. Huerta, No. 05-10524

(5th Cir. June 4, 2002). The district court having found that

the late filing should be excused, the Government now moves this
No. 02-10524

-2-

court to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction and, in the alternative, requests an extension of

time to file its appellate brief. 

Huerta argues that the district court erred by failing to

construe his motion as sounding under § 2255. He does not

challenge the district court’s holding that the rule of lenity

does not provide a jurisdictional basis for the district court to

grant relief, and he does not suggest any other statutory basis

for jurisdiction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). 

Huerta’s motion is facially time-barred under § 2255 and he

did not timely present any evidence to the district court

relevant to a whether a motion for § 2255 relief might be deemed

timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(4). Accordingly, the Government’s

motion for an extension of time is denied as moot and the appeal

is dismissed. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED AS

MOOT.
State of North Carolina v. Damario Montreal Coxton

No. 121P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016.

Mr. Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, For Coxton, Damario Montreal.

Mr. David Elliott, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 7th of September 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of September 2016 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 8th of December 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th of September 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
STATE v. Jermaine Derrick CARSON, Jr.

154P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2017

Jermaine D. Carson, Jr., for Carson, Jermaine Derrick (Jr.).

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of June 2017 by Defendant for Writ for En Banc:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
Dr. Catherine B. NEWKIRK v. CVS-CAREMARK CORP., et al.

No. 38P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Catherine Newkirk, for Newkirk, Catherine B.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 10th of February 2016 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 17th of March 2016."
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00150-CR

LOWELL THOMAS REDDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 40208-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.
2

ORDER

Appellant Lowell Thomas Redden was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Redden has appealed from that conviction and 

the resulting sentence. On January 10, 2020, Redden’s court-appointed appellate counsel, 

Natalie A. Anderson, filed an Anders1 brief, and on February 18, 2020, Redden filed a pro se 

motion for access to the appellate record for purposes of preparing a response to his counsel’s 

Anders brief. Redden’s motion for access to the appellate record is granted. Under Kelly v. State,

2

we are required to enter an order specifying the procedure to be followed to ensure Redden’s access 

to the record.

On February 19, 2020, Anderson advised this Court that she would mail a complete paper 

copy of the appellate record to Redden. Allowing fifteen days for the record to be delivered to 

Redden and giving him thirty days to prepare his pro se response, we hereby set April 6, 2020, as 

the deadline for Redden to file his pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

DATE: February 25, 2020

1

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre, certify that:

         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB/A of Logica Holdings Inc.;

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditor 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 involve management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: March 27th, 2008.


/s/ Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
--------------------------------
Name: Giuseppe Pino Baldassarre
Chief Executive Officer
# Official Journal C 311I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 311I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 643 August 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 311I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 643 August 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 311 I/01 | Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1278, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1276 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua | 1 |
| 2021/C 311 I/02 | Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua apply | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2021/C 311 I/01

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1278, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1276 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua

1

2021/C 311 I/02

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1716 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua apply

3

---

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

EN
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4198 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reinstate the requirement for 

an annual report on the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

to provide for specialized treatment and rehabilitative needs of disabled 

veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. DENHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reinstate the 

requirement for an annual report on the capacity of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for specialized treatment and rehabilitative needs of disabled 

veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Appropriate Care for 

5 Disabled Veterans Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4198 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT FOR REPORT ON 

2 THE CAPACITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

3 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE FOR SPE4 CIALIZED TREATMENT AND REHABILITATIVE 

5 NEEDS OF DISABLED VETERANS. 

6 The first sentence of section 1706(b)(5)(A) of title 

7 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘through 

8 2008’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
----

EXHIBIT 32.2

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 ICP SolarTechnologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31,2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Sass Peress, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 ofthe Company. 

/s/ *Sass Peress*------------------------------- Sass Peress Principal Accounting Officer December 21, 2009 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company'sForm 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separatedisclosure document. 

----
PLASMAN v. DECCA FURNITURE (USA), INC., et al.

127P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Matthew K. Rogers, Attorney at Law, Hickory, for Plasman, Christian G.

Robert A. Muckenfuss, Attorney at Law, Andrew D. Atkins, Attorney at Law, Jodie H. Lawson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Decca Furniture (USA), Inc., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of May 2017 by Defendants to Dismiss Portions of Petition for Discretionary Review that Are Untimely:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Tyrus Erskin WINSLOW, Defendant.

No. COA15-1181.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 39 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 39

 To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, and the Asian Elephant Conservation 
                              Act of 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2013

 Mr. Young of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros 
and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, and the Asian Elephant Conservation 
                              Act of 1997.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT.

    Section 2306(a) of the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 
4245(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and inserting 
``2014 through 2018''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF RHINOCEROS AND TIGER CONSERVATION ACT OF 
              1994.

    Section 10(a) of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 
(16 U.S.C. 5306(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and 
inserting ``2014 through 2018''.

SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF ASIAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT OF 1997.

    Section 8(a) of the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 (16 
U.S.C. 4266(a)) is amended by striking ``2007 through 2012'' and 
inserting ``2014 through 2018''.
                                 <all>
```