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

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2776

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor Manuel Varela-Arzola, also known as Hector Varela, also known as Jose

Torres Varela, also known as Jose Torres, also known as Jose V. Torres, also

known as Victor Varela, also known as Many Vaarela, also known as Victor

Marin, also known as Hector Rodriguez

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: February 24, 2016

Filed: March 1, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Victor Varela-Arzola appeals after he pleaded guilty to an immigration offense

and the District Court imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has

1

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

U.S. 738 (1967), generally challenging Varela-Arzola’s sentence. Varela-Arzola has

filed a supplemental brief arguing—in reference to a supervised-release revocation

sentence imposed at the same hearing—that he should have received concurrent,

rather than consecutive, sentences.

After careful review, we conclude that the District Court did not commit any

significant procedural sentencing error or impose a substantively unreasonable

sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076–77 (8th Cir. 2012)

(discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); United States v. Becker, 636

F.3d 402, 408 (8th Cir. 2011) (“[A] district court has the discretion to impose a

sentence concurrently or consecutively based on the same [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)

factors as other sentencing decisions.”). Furthermore, we have independently

reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no

nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

-2-
<PAGE>   1
                           SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Seagull Energy Corporation:

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements of Seagull Energy Corporation of our report dated
February 9, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Seagull Energy
Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, which report
appears or is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Seagull Energy Corporation.

     a.   Form S-8, Seagull Thrift Plan (2-72014).
     b.   Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1981 Non-Qualified and Incentive
          Stock Option Plan (2-80834).
     c.   Form S-8, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Thrift Plan (33-14463).
     d.   Forms S-8 and S-3, Seagull Energy Corporation 1983 Stock Option Plan
          (2-93087).
     e.   Forms S-8 and S-3, Seagull Energy Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan
          (33-22475).
     f.   Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan
          (33-43483).
     g.   Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan
          (33-50643).
     h.   Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Nonemployee Directors' Stock
          Option Plan (33-50645).
     i.   Form S-3, $350,000,000 Debt Securities of Seagull Energy Corporation
          (33-65118).
     j.   Form S-3, ENSTAR Alaska Group of Common Stock of Seagull Energy
          Corporation (33-53729).
     k.   Form S-8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1995 Omnibus Stock Plan
          (33-64041).
     l.   Form S-3, $300,000,000 Debt Securities, Preferred Stock, Depositary
          Shares, Common Stock or Securities Warrants of Seagull Energy
          Corporation (33-64051).
     m.   Form S-8, Global Natural Resources In. 1989 Key Employees Stock Option
          Plan and 1992 Stock Option Plan (333-13393).
     n.   Form S-8, 1998 Omnibus Stock Plan (333-71375).


/s/ KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
February 15, 1999
Exhibit 32.2
**STATEMENT**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350,the undersigned officer of Mercury Air Group, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertifies that to the knowledge of the undersigned:
  (1) The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthperiod ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements ofsections 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and
  (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.     /s/ Robert Schlax   Robert Schlax *Chief Financial Officer*
November 12, 2004
31
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



As of October 2, 2004 the Companys subsidiaries, all wholly-owned and incorporated in California (except where noted otherwise) were:



|         |  |                                                                           
|-------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|         |  | Banner Marketing, Inc.                                                    
|         |  | Certified Grocers of California, Ltd.                                     
|(4)      |  | United Grocers, Inc.                                                      
|         |  | Grocers and Merchants Insurance Service, Inc.                             
|         |  | Grocers Capital Company                                                   
|         |  | Grocers Specialty Company                                                 
|         |  | Grocers Development Center, Inc.                                          
|         |  | Preferred Public Storage Company                                          
|         |  | Crown Grocers, Inc.                                                       
|         |  | Grocers General Merchandise Company                                       
|(1)      |  | Unified International, Inc.                                               
|(2)      |  | Grocers and Merchants Management Company (2) Springfield Insurance Company
|(3)      |  | SavMax Foods, Inc.                                                        
|(4)      |  | Northwest Process, Inc.                                                   
|(4)      |  | R&R Liquidating Corporation                                               
|(4)      |  | U.G. Resources, Inc.                                                      
|(4)      |  | United Resources, Inc.                                                    
|(4)      |  | Western Security Services, Ltd.                                           
|(4)      |  | Western Passage Express, Ltd.                                             
|(2), (5) |  | Springfield Insurance Company Limited                                     

---

|(1) | Incorporated in Delaware
|--- | ------------------------

|(2) | Outstanding capital shares are owned by Grocers and Merchants Insurance Services, Inc.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Outstanding capital shares are owned by Crown Grocers, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------

|(4) | Incorporated in Oregon
|--- | ----------------------

|(5) | Incorporated in Bermuda
|--- | -----------------------
#### Saleem R. HASAN, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 04-3352.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 14, 2005.

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

*314Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### STATE v. GWALTNEY

No. 115 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 240.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 December 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 21 December 1976.
#### STATE v. FOUST

No. 97 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 133.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss ^appeal allowed 12 July 1973.
Exhibit 31.1
Section 302 Certifications

I, Michael Sheriff, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on form 10-QSB of The X-Change
Corporation,

         2. Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 for the registrant and have:

        a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  proceduresto  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  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
        this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        c)  presented  in  this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
        effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our
        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 functions):

        a) all  significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control  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.

         6. The registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly 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 my most recent  evaluation,  including any  corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 12, 2004

/s/ Michael Sheriff
----------------------------------
Michael Sheriff, President, Chief
Executive Officer , Treasurer and Chairman
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23.1



        Report on Schedule and Consent of KPMG LLP, Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
ZiLOG, Inc.


The audit referred to in our report dated March 29, 2002, included the
related consolidated financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2000,
and for the year ended December 31, 2001, as listed in the Index in Item
14(a)2. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this
financial statement schedule based on our audit. In our opinion, such
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidation financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects, the information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-81697, 333-33564 and 333-55522) on form S-8 of ZiLOG, Inc. of our report
dated March 29, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of ZiLOG,
Inc. as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statement of
operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for the year then ended, and
the related financial statement schedule which report appears in the December
31, 2001 Form 10k of ZiLOG, Inc.

Our reports, dated March 29, 2002, contain an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has
a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, the Company filed a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court on February 28, 2002. Although the
Company is currently operating their business as debtor-in-possession under
the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, the continuation of their business
as a going concern is contingent upon, among other things, the Company's
ability to gain confirmation of their plan of reorganization by the Bankruptcy
Court and ultimately to achieve profitable operations and positive cash flow.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of these uncertainties.



Mountain View, California
April 9, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22421; Airspace Docket No. 05-ASW-1]
RIN 2120-AA66


Revision of Jet Routes J-8, J-18, J-19, J-58, J-76, J-104 and J-
244; and VOR Federal Airways V-60, V-190, V-263 and V-611; Las Vegas, 
NM

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action changes the effective date of a final rule 
published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60424), 
Airspace Docket No. 05-ASW-1. In that rule, the effective date was 
inadvertently published as December 22, 2005. This action changes the 
effective date to April 13, 2006.

EFFECTIVE DATE: In the final rule published October 18, 2005 (70 FR 
60424), the effective date is corrected to read April 13, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Rohring, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    On October 18, 2005, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 60424), Airspace Docket No. 05-ASW-1. This rule revised 
Jet Routes J-8, J-18, J-19, J-58, J-76, J-104 and J-244; and VOR 
Federal Airways V-60, V-190, V-263 and V-611; Las Vegas, NM. In that 
rule, the effective date was inadvertently published as December 22, 
2005. This action changes the effective date to April 13, 2006.

Delay of Effective Date

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
effective date for Airspace Docket No. 05-ASW-1, as published in the 
Federal Register on October 18, 2005 (70 FR 60424), Airspace Docket No. 
05-ASW-1, is hereby delayed from December 22, 2005 to April 13, 2006.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2005.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 05-22578 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### DANJEE, INC. v. ADDRESSOGRAPH MULTIGRAPH CORP.

No. 73 PC.

Case below: 44 N.C. App. 626.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
THE TRUSTEE*
OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as explained in Note 3
to the Trusts financial statements contained in the Trusts Annual Report to Unit
Holders for the year ended December 31, 2008, attached as Exhibit 13 to the Report, in
accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 47,
released September 16, 1982, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner
that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is
customary to other royalty trusts); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 COMPASS BANK, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonName:
    
    Lee Ann AndersonTitle:
    
    Vice President and Senior Trust OfficerDate: March 2, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Intelligent Systems Corporation
Norcross, GA

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements Form S-8 No. 333-58134 and No. 333-32157 of our report dated March
3, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Intelligent Systems Corporation and Subsidiaries appearing in the company's
annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/ Tauber & Balser, P.C.

Tauber & Balser, P.C.


Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2005
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, SCHOFIELD 

BARRACKS COMMISSARY, Wahiawa, HI,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1160

Issued: September 28, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 8, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a July 18, 2018 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-1160.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.2 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.3

1 The Board notes that the record does not contain a March 2, 2023 OWCP decision. The most recent OWCP 

decision is dated July 18, 2018.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

The 180th day following the July 18, 2018 decision was January 14, 2019. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until September 8, 2023, more than 180 days after the

July 18, 2018 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-1160 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not 

explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 23-1160, must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1160 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES F-2 THROUGH F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         145,470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,356,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                   471,571
<INVENTORY>                                    647,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,999,464
<PP&E>                                      11,046,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,508,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,212,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,807,417
<BONDS>                                      6,502,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,089,638
<COMMON>                                       139,436
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,511,398)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,212,264
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,101,585
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,089,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               310,708
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             827,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,029,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,029,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,029,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>