alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/15/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JOE DON SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. STATE OF UTAH; UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-4138 (D.C. No. 93-CV-762) (Dist. Utah)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 3 4.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Mr. Smith brought this federal habeas corpus actionwhen the state denied his requests for a free transcript to assist his pr eparation for a state post--2-

conviction proceeding in which he sought to establi sh that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel at his trial. The federal court ordered the state to provide transcripts, which were subsequently suppli ed. Mr. Smith then brought a motion for contempt on the ground that the transcri pts were incomplete and had been “doctored,” and requested the district court t o grant further habeas relief. The district court found that the transcripts had b een provided within the time allotted by its order. Mr. Smith has provided this court with no reason to believe this conclusion is clearly erroneous. Even assuming the transcripts do not accurately reflect the proceedings they purport to record, such errors or omissions need not constitute contempt. Mr. Smith’s federal habeas claim rested on the ground that an indigent prisoner appealing an adver se decision in a state postconviction proceeding must be afforded appellat e review as adequate and effective as that provided a prisoner who has moneyto buy transcripts. See Long v. District Court of Iowa , 385 U.S. 192, 194 (1966); Gardner v. California , 393 U.S. 367, 368 (1969). Mr. Smith received his reque sted transcript. “[T]here is no constitutional right to a perfect transcript.” State v. Menzies , 845 P.2d 220, 241 (Utah 1992). Mr. Smith’s remedy for any errors or omissions in the transcript is in state court. We agree with the district court that Mr. Smith has not made the substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nec essary to obtain a certificate of-3-

probable cause. We construe Mr. Smith’s applicatio n for a certificate of probable cause as a motion for a certificate of appealability now required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), see Lennox v. Evans , 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), and we deny it.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apextalk Holdings, Inc. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 19, 2010          |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ Hui Liu                    |
| Hui LiuChief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         376,368
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  933,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                    95,860
<INVENTORY>                                    380,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,803,373
<PP&E>                                       4,687,682
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,868,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,062,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,003,564
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,506
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,695,255
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,062,678
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,897,105
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,202,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,431,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               127,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             103,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (863,509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (167,530)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (927,902)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (592,757)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,353,129)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 6, 2016

NO. 03-14-00327-CR

Johan Dilson De Souza, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
# C_2010171EN.01000202.xml

| 30.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5871 — KKR/Triton/Ambea)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 171/04

On 25 June 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5871. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5871. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 11918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-934]


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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Issuance of Technical Releases 8 and 9 and Appointment 
of New Board Members

    Board Action: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. No. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as 
amended in April, 2004, notice is hereby given that the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board has issued Technical Release 8, 
Clarification of Standard Relating to Inter-Entity Costs, and Technical 
Release 9, Implementation Guide for Statement of FASAB 29: Heritage 
Assets and Stewardship Land.
    The purpose of Technical Release (TR) 8 is to provide guidance to 
federal entities on three aspects of full costing specified in SFFAS 4. 
The purpose of Technical Release (TR) 9 is to assist federal entities 
in reporting information on heritage assets (HA) and stewardship land 
(SL) in accordance with SFFAS 29.
    The Technical Releases are available on the FASAB Web site at 
http://www.fasab.gov or by calling 202-512-7350.
    The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board also announces the 
appointment to the Board of Mr. Norwood Jackson, effective February 
2007, and Mr. Harold I. Steinberg, effective July 1, 2007.
    For Further Information Contact: Wendy Payne, Executive Director, 
441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 
512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463.

    Dated: February 28, 2008.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 08-934 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVEN E. SIMMINGER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 31 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40173

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DUSTIN LEE HENRY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-785-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dustin Lee Henry appeals the restitution payment schedule imposed

following his conviction for theft. In addition to five years of probation, the

district court sentenced Henry to restitution in the amount of $5,000, to be paid

in monthly installments of $150 until paid in full. Henry contends that the

district court failed to properly consider his limited financial resources when

setting his restitution payment schedule, resulting in a monthly payment

amount that far exceeded his means.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-40173 Document: 00512407205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 13-40173

Because Henry did not object to the restitution schedule in the district

court, his argument is reviewed under the plain error standard. See United

States v. Arledge, 553 F.3d 881, 900 (5th Cir. 2008). The following factors are to

be considered in setting a restitution payment schedule: (1) the defendant’s

financial resources and assets, including whether any assets are jointly

controlled; (2) the defendant’s projected earnings and any other income; and (3)

the defendant’s financial obligations, including obligations to dependents. 18

U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2); Arledge, 553 F.3d at 900. This court will not reverse a

district court’s decision concerning the scheduling of restitution payments unless

the defendant shows “that it is probable that the district court failed to consider

one of the mandatory factors and the failure to consider that factor influenced

the court.” United States v. Schinnell, 80 F.3d 1064, 1070 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Henry’s challenge is unavailing, as the district court’s questions and comments

at sentencing demonstrate that it was familiar with Henry’s financial

circumstances and considered the § 3663(f)(2) factors in deciding his restitution

payment schedule.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-40173 Document: 00512407205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”)for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, A.Richard Juelis, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of theCorporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that tomy knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of December 31,2006.
| Dated: March 29, 2007 | /s/ *A.  RICHARD JUELIS                            |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                       | A. Richard Juelis,                                 |
|                       | Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer |
|                       | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       |

----

*                    A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
News Release
 
 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE        Exhibit 99.1
 Contact Information:
 Jim Burke
 Media Relations
 Jim.Burke@L3Harris.com
 321-727-9131
 
 L3Harris Technologies, Inc. Announces Final                                                      Results and Settlement of  Exchange Offers
 
 MELBOURNE, Fla., May 5, 2020 — L3Harris Technologies (NYSE: LHX) today announced the final results and settlement of the previously announced offers to exchange all of the outstanding notes issued by L3Harris as set forth in the table below for an equal principal amount of new notes registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
 
 The Exchange Offers expired at 5 p.m., New York City time, on May 1, 2020 (the “Expiration Date”). As of the Expiration Date, the following principal amounts of each series of Original Notes were validly tendered and not validly withdrawn:
 Title of SeriesAggregatePrincipalAmount of Original NotesOutstanding Prior to Commencement of Exchange OffersOriginal Notes Tendered atExpiration DatePrincipal AmountPercentage4.950% Senior Notes due 2021$500,875,000$500,874,00099.99%3.850% Senior Notes due 2023$740,871,000$740,671,00099.97%3.950% Senior Notes due 2024$326,529,000$326,279,00099.92%3.850% Senior Notes due 2026$534,777,000$534,762,00099.99%4.400% Senior Notes due 2028$971,994,000$907,994,00098.91%
 The Exchange Offers were made to satisfy L3Harris’ obligations under the registration rights agreement entered into as part of the issuance and sale of the Original Notes, which occurred in exchange for notes previously issued by L3 Technologies, Inc. (“L3”) in connection with the combination of L3 and Harris Corporation, and pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2020 related to the Exchange Offers (the “Prospectus”).
 
 
  
 L3Harris accepted all of the Original Notes tendered in exchange for the Exchange Notes, and at settlement of the Exchange Offers on May 5, 2020, L3Harris issued to the holders of Original Notes tendered prior to 5:00 p.m. New York City time on May 1, 2020 Exchange Notes in an aggregate principal amount equal to the aggregate principal amount of Original Notes that were accepted for exchange.
 
 About L3Harris Technologies L3Harris Technologies is an agile global aerospace and defense technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet customers’ mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced defense and commercial technologies across air, land, sea, space and cyber domains. L3Harris has approximately $18 billion in annual revenue and 50,000 employees, with customers in 130 countries. L3Harris.com .
 
 
 # # #
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1240 

KA 11-02219 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER W. TESSITORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN N. BAUERSFELD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.), rendered May 3, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his

plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§

110.00, 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that the sentence is unduly

harsh and severe and that the award of restitution is unlawful. 

Defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence is encompassed

by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d

248, 255-256; People v Harris, 94 AD3d 1484, 1485, lv denied 19 NY3d

961; People v Gordon, 89 AD3d 1466, 1466, lv denied 18 NY3d 957). 

Defendant’s challenge “to the amount of restitution is not

foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal because the amount of

restitution was not included in the terms of the plea agreement”

(People v Sweeney, 4 AD3d 769, 770, lv denied 2 NY3d 807; see People v

Spencer, 87 AD3d 1284, 1285). Defendant, however, failed to preserve

his challenge to the restitution amount for our review inasmuch as he

did not object to that amount at sentencing (see People v Jorge N.T.,

70 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv denied 14 NY3d 889; People v Hannig, 68 AD3d

1779, 1780, lv denied 14 NY3d 801), and in any event he affirmatively

waived his right to a restitution hearing (see People v Huffman, 288

AD2d 907, 908, lv denied 97 NY2d 755).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32
----------
                            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 Annual Report of  FinancialContent,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the undersigned,  the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their 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.

/s/ Ross Lyndon-James                       /s/ Brian Harcourt
---------------------------                -------------------------------
    Ross Lyndon James                           Brian Harcourt
    Chief Executive Officer,                    Chief Financial Officer
    May 22, 2006                                May 22, 2006

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 126 (Monday, June 30, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1400]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 126 / Monday, June 30, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 36789]]



GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

4 CFR Part 22


Rules of Procedure of the Government Accountability Office 
Contract Appeals Board; Correction

AGENCY: Government Accountability Office.

ACTION: Interim rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 26, 2008, the Government Accountability Office 
Contract Appeals Board published an interim rule, but inadvertently 
omitted the effective date. This document adds an effective date to the 
published interim rule.

DATES: The interim rule published on June 26, 2008, at 73 FR 36257 is 
effective on June 26, 2008, and is applicable to all appeals filed on 
or after October 1, 2007. Comments must be submitted on or before 
August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#167577745671777938717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff9c9e9dbf989e90d1989089">[email protected]</span></a> or by 
facsimile at 202-512-9749. Due to delivery delays, submission by 
regular mail is discouraged. Comments may be sent by Federal Express 
(FedEx) or United Parcel Service (UPS) addressed to: James A. 
Spangenberg, Chairman, Government Accountability Office Contract 
Appeals Board, 441 G Street, NW., Room 7182, Washington, DC 20548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Spangenberg (Chairman), David 
Ashen (Vice Chairman), or Sharon L. Larkin (Member), 202-512-3342, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3a0a2a183a4a2aceda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cfffdfedcfbfdf3b2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>. Hearing or speech impaired individuals may contact the 
Board via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: June 26, 2008.
James A. Spangenberg,
Chairman, Government Accountability Contract Appeals Board.
[FR Doc. 08-1400 Filed 6-26-08; 1:23 pm]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>