alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50386

ELSIE J. CHURCH, Deceased; MARSHALL B. MILLER, JR., Independent Co-Executor; MARY ELISE NEWTON, Independent Co-Executor, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. SA-97-CV-774)

_______________________________________________________ July 18, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons.2

The only issue of the estate’s valuation is whether the transfer of the assets was restricted at the time of Church’s death. Different legal theories have been argued during the course of this proceeding, but that has always been the dispositive question – as it was the basis for the different valuations given the assets by the appraiser (not now questioned). Regardless of the status of the limited partnership due to the certificate not being filed on that date, the documents that Church had signed imposed restrictions on the assets that necessarily caused their value to be discounted even if no limited partnership was then formed. We reject the government’s argument that the 1999 revision of the Texas statute made the filing of the certificate an absolute prerequisite to the creation of a limited partnership and rendered an agreement between the parties unenforceable until the time of filing. A Texas court has held that a written partnership agreement constitutes an enforceable contract and governs the rights of the parties. Hoagland v. Finholt , 773 S.W.2d 740, 742-43 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1989, no writ). Further, the Bar Committee’s commentary to the 1999 revision of section 2.01 states that the revision was not meant to overturn Garrett v. Koepke , 569 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.), which held that an entity could operate as a limited partnership before filing a certificate. T EX . R EV . C IV . S TAT . A NN . art. 6132a-1 § 2.01, Source and Comment–Bar Committee (Vernon Supp. 2001). The estate stated in its pleadings that the discounts for lack of control applied without the formation of a limited partnership, and in its refund claim it stated that it was3

entitled to a “discount for lack of control and marketability.” The IRS was apprised of the nature of the refund claim. AFFIRMED.
#### United States Trust Company of New York, as Substituted Trustee under the Will of John R. Peters, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*De Witt C. Peters et al., Respondents, and Marie L. de Chefdebien, Appellant.

*U. S. Trust Co. of N. Y.*v. *Peters,*180 App. Div. 186, affirmed.

(Submitted October 4, 1918;

decided October 22, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 20, 1917, which modified and affirmed as modified a judgment of Special Term construing the will of John R. Peters, deceased. The question presented was whether the children of John R. Peters took vested interests in remainder in the trust estate created by him by his will or whether such interests were subject to be divested by the death of such children before the expiration of the trust term. The Special Term held that the remainder interests vested in the testator’s children immediately on the death of the testator and that consequently the legatees and devisees under the will of a deceased child were entitled to- share in the trust estate. The Appellate Division modified the judgment entered at Special Term and decided that the remainder interests of the children were subject to be divested by their death before the termination of the trust.

*Achilles H. Kohn*for appellant.

*George L. Shearer*and *William A. W. Stewart*-for plaintiff, respondent.

*John De Witt Warner Sox*De Witt C. Peters, respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, - Hogan, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.
#### SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Appellant, v. LAWRENCE LUCIAN SCALIO, Respondent.

No. 12832

September 18, 1980

616 P.2d 402

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *Gregory C. Diamond,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Richard T. Bourgault,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Indicted for a felony, respondent filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was considered and granted by the district court, and the state has appealed.

We need not consider the merits, if any, of the appeal. Respondent’s habeas petition was not verified by oath or affirmation as clearly required by NRS 34.370(3). Therefore, the petition was not cognizable in the district court. Sheriff v. Arvey, 93 Nev. 72, 560 P.2d 153 (1977). Accordingly, we *sua sponte*reverse and instruct the district court to dismiss the habeas petition.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20032 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER ANEIDER ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas (CR-H-94-195-2)

______________________________________________

April 18, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Javier Aneider Alvarez argues that the district court clearly

err ed in denying him an adjustment for his minor role in the

offense.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

find no reversible error. In so concluding we note that the fact

that a codefendant is more culpable does not automatically qualify

a defendant for either minor or minimal participant status. S ee2

United States v. Thomas

, 963 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1992). Further,

the district court is not required to accept a defendant's selfserving statements about his role in the offense. U nited States v.

Brown
, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995). Appellant's admissions

that he had transported a significant amount of drugs and that he

was responsible for picking up the funds due in a drug deal worth

one-half million dollars indicates that he was a trusted member of

a drug organization rather than a mere courier. S ee United States

v. Thomas , 963 F.2d at 65.

AFFIRMED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

KENNETH ARTHUR HALL, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-791

[June 27, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2006-CF-005213 A.

Kenneth Arthur Hall, Jr., Crawfordville, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
32.1






Section 1350 Certification
of Principal Executive Officer







The
undersigned, the Chairman, President and Treasurer of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 (the “Quarterly Report”) accompanying this
certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods presented as required by such report. The foregoing
certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
principal executive officer of the Company, my own due diligence and
representations made by certain other members of the Company’s senior
management.





Date:  May
20, 2009





/s/ Joel H.
Girsky


Joel H.
Girsky


Chairman,
President and Treasurer


(Principal
Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. 

*Dates:*                     Written comments should be received on or before December 9, 2005 to be assured of consideration.                 

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1788.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) Membership Application.                 

*Form:*                     IRS form 13013C.                 

*Description:*                     An application to volunteer to serve on the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, an advisory panel to the IRS.                 

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit, Individual or households.                 

*Estimated Total Burden Hours:*                     1,800 hours.                 

*Clearance Officer:*                     Glenn P. Kirkland, (202) 622-3428, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                 

Michael A. Robinson, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-22339 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Case 1:07-cr-00353-PKC Document 127 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00353-PKC Document 127 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00353-PKC Document 127 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2


             Section 1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer


The undersigned, Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary, of Jaco
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Quarterly
Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented as required by such
report. The foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my
responsibilities as principal financial officer of the Company, my own due
diligence and representations made by certain other members of the Company's
senior management.


Date:  February 14, 2005

                                  /s/ Jeffrey D. Gash
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                 Jeffrey D. Gash
                                 Executive Vice President, Finance and Secretary
                                 (Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alfred M. Schiffrin, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Renewable
Assets, Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;

2.   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; and

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 Company as of, and for, the period presented in this report.

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for
     the Company and have:

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

     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
         procedures and presented in this report my 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 changes in the Company's internal control
         over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
         fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
         materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
         reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Company's
     auditors and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls over financial reporting which hare reasonably likely to
         adversely affect the Company'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 a significant role in the Company's internal control
         over financial reporting.


                                     /s/ ALFRED M. SCHIFFRIN
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Alfred M. Schiffrin
                                     Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

May 8, 2006


                                     - 13 -
#### IN RE MITCHELL

No. 34 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 236.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina. Court of Appeals allowed 1 November 1973.
#### Ehitemariam Tsehay ANDUALEM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-2198.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 16, 2005.

Decided April 5, 2005.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Anita C. Snyder, Assis*503tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Ehitemariam Tsehay Andualem, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* The Board affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge that Andualem was not a credible witness and did not sustain her burden of proof.

To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Andualem fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.

Nor can Andualem show that she was entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum—even though the facts that must be proved are the same—an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004).

We deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*

*

 Andualem raises no claim on appeal regarding the Convention against Torture. Therefore, she has abandoned this claim. *See United States v. Al-Hamdi,*356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004); *Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
##### 



AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT




---



##### 



A = Pt/(1 - T  t), where -
 -2-




---



##### 



A
    
    is the additional amount for any calendar year;P
    
    is the amount of the excess parachute payment for the calendar
year in excess of the allocable base amount as defined in Code Section
280G(b)(3);T
    
    is the effective marginal rate of federal and state income tax
applicable to the Executive for the calendar year; andt
    
    is the rate of parachute tax under Code Section 4999.The effective marginal rate of federal and state income tax shall be computed as
follows:T = F + S(l - 0.8F) + m, where -F
    
    is the highest marginal rate of federal income tax applicable
to the Executive for the calendar year;S
    
    is the highest aggregate marginal rate of state income tax
applicable to the Executive for the calendar year in the state or states and
municipalities to which the Executive is then required to pay income taxes as a
result of the Executives employment by the Corporation; andm
    
    is the employees portion of the Medicare tax, currently 1.45%.
    -3-




---



##### 



provided however provided however further provided
  provided however
  -4-




---



##### 



provided however
    -5-




---



##### 



-6-




---



##### 



th provided
     CITIZENS REPUBLIC BANCORP, INC.
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVEBy:Date:
    
    February 26, 2008
    
    
    
    Date: February 26, 2008
 -7-
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22245]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Extension of Period of Determination on Request for Textile and 
Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China

November 2, 2005.
AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (the 
Committee).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is extending through November 8, 2005, the 
period for making a determination on whether to request consultations 
with China regarding imports of women's and girls' cotton and man-made 
fiber shirts and blouses, not-knit (Category 341/641).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Dowling, Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Section 204 of the Agriculture Act of 1956, as 
amended; Executive Order 11651, as amended.

Background:

    On July 11, 2005, the Committee received a request from the 
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of 
Textile Organizations, the National Textile Association, and UNITE HERE 
requesting that the Committee limit imports from China of women's and 
girls' cotton and man-made fiber shirts and blouses, not-knit (Category 
341/641) due to market disruption.
    The Committee determined that this request provided the information 
necessary for the Committee to consider the request and solicited 
public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public 
Comments on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports 
from China, 70 FR 44566 (August 3, 2005).
    The Committee's Procedures, 68 FR 27787 (May 21, 2003) state that 
the Committee will make a determination within 60 calendar days of the 
close of the public comment period as to whether the United States will 
request consultations with China. If the Committee is unable to make a 
determination within 60 calendar days, it will cause to be published a 
notice in the Federal Register, including the date by which it will 
make a determination.
    The 60-day determination period for this case expired on November 
1, 2005. However, the Committee decided to extend until November 8, 
2005, the period for making a determination on this case because of 
consultations with the Government of China on a broader agreement on 
textiles.

James C. Leonard III,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc.05-22245 Filed 11-3-05; 2:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S