alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40525 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. J OS E M ANUE L P OLANC O D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 08- C R - 22- 1 B e fo r e H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS , a n dP R A D O , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * Jose M an u elP ol an co w as i n di ct ed f or andpl ead ed gui l t y t o h aving been

“f o und” i n t he U ni t ed S t ate s f o l l o w i ng a pr i o rr e m o va la nd wi t ho utha vi ng o b t a i n e dc o n s e n tt o r e a p p l yf o ra d mi s s i o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 . H e w as s e nt e nc e d t o 6 5 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n. Pol anc o a ppe al s hi s conv i c t i o n f o rt he l i m i t e d p ur po s e o f c o r r e c t i ng t he j udg m e ntund e rFe deralRul e o f Cr i m i nalPr o c e dur e 3 6, a r gui ng t hatt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40525

2 j u dg m en tshou l d ref l e ct t h at he w as convi ct ed of “bei n g f

ou n d i n ” t h e U n i t ed S t ates an d n otof

“ [i] l l egal [r] e- [ e] n t ry, ” as li st ed i n th e ju d g m e n t . H e argu es t h at“be i ng f

o und i n” t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd “i l l e ga lr e e nt r y”a r e di st i n ct of fen ses. Rul e 3 6 autho r i z e s us t o c o r r e c to nl y c l e r i c ale r r o r s , w hi c h o c c urw he n “t he c o u r t in te n d e do n e th in gb u t b ym e r e lyc l e r i c a lm is ta k e o ro v e r s ig h t d id a n oth er.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t een , 55 F. 3d 1022, 1026 n. 3 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) (i nt er nal quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t ati on s om i t t e d) . I n t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s j udg m e nt , t he

“ N at ur e o f

O f fe ns e ” de s c r i pt i o n, “ [i] l l e ga l[r] e - [ e ] nt r y, ” s o c l o s e l y t r ac ks t he § 132 6 tit l e, “ [r] een t ry of rem oved al i en s, ” t h at i t bears n o i n di ci a of t h e di st ri ct court h aving m ad e a m i st ak e or oversi gh t . R ather, itapp ears t h at th e di st ri ct c our ti nt ended the “ N at ure of O f fens e” t o r ef

erge ner al l y t o the t i t l e o f § 1326. T h e r e fo r e , t h e r e is n o c le r ic a l e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. B u end i a-R angel , 553 F .3 d3 7 8 , 3 7 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RMED.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 10, 2010                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |
| /s/ Alessandro Sodi                                       |
| Alessandro      Sodi                                      |
| Chief      Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |

----
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Greenmark Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2009 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date: August 5, 2008
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 21, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-175 Lower Tribunal No. F16-7074

________________ 

### Marvin Pace , Appellant, vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Anne Stuzin, Judge. Marvin Pace, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 25, 2009

Decided March 26, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐3372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

LYLE I. DANK,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

No. 08‐CR‐64‐C‐01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Lyle Dank pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846, 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment.  Dank filed a notice of

appeal, but his appointed lawyer has moved to withdraw because he cannot discern a

nonfrivolous basis for appeal.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  We invited Dank

to respond to counsel’s submission, see CIR. R. 51(b), but he has not.  We limit our review to

the single issue considered in counsel’s supporting brief.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d

968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).  Counsel represents that Dank does not want his guilty plea

vacated, and so counsel properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy

or the voluntariness of the plea.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670‐72 (7th Cir.

2002).  

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐3372 Page 2

Counsel has identified just one potential argument: whether Dank might challenge

the reasonableness of his prison sentence.  Based on two prior felony convictions, one for

sexual assault and the second for possession with intent to deliver marijuana, Dank was

sentenced as a career offender.  See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a).  The district court set a base offense

level of 32, see id., and subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a),

which, combined with a criminal history category of VI, yielded a guidelines imprisonment

range of 151 to 188 months.  The court sentenced him to the low end of the suggested range.

A sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumed reasonable.   Rita v.

United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Cano‐Rodriguez, 552 F.3d 637, 639

(7th Cir. 2009).  At sentencing, the judge considered the appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), including Dank’s contention that he should be sentenced below the guidelines

range because one of the convictions underlying his career‐offender status was 20 years old.

The judge noted, though, that Dank had a history of increasingly serious criminal offenses,

and an apparent inability to refrain from resorting to criminality to resolve challenges in his

life.  Because the court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, any argument

challenging Dank’s sentence would be frivolous.  See, e.g., United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d

494, 496 (7th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 Concord EFS, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward T. Haslam, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|                        |  |                                          |  |                     
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Dated:   August 8, 2002 |  | By:                                      |  | /s/ Edward T. Haslam
|                        |  |                                         
|                        |  | Edward T. Haslam
Chief Financial Officer
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 

AT'TQWET QglWlL OF TSUAfl 

ATTOFUWX GKBBRAL OP -8
**Exhibit 99.6**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors of Minera Andes Inc.

 

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F/A of:

 

·                 our Independent Auditors’ Report dated March 17, 2011, except for Note 2(a), which is as of June 6, 2011 on the consolidated balance sheet of Minera Andes Inc. (the “Company”) as at December 31, 2010 and  December 31, 2009, and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended

 

·                 our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 30, 2011, except for Note 2(a), which is as of June 6, 2011 on the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years  in the two-year period ended December 31, 2010

 

·                 our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated  March 30, 2011 on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010

 

each of which is contained  in or incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

 

Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants

 

Toronto, Canada

June 6, 2011

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001030451
<NAME> ANCHOR HOLDINGS, INC.
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,194)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,348
<PP&E>                                         162,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,281)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,942
<BONDS>                                        230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (51,125)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,166
<SALES>                                        398,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          355,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  400,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,570)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,768)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,451)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,451)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (20.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (20.92)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2019

No. 04

- 16

- 00593

- CV

Alvin M. BURNS and I.M. Burns

,

Appellant s

v.

DIMMIT COUNTY, TEXAS

, Roberto Ramirez, and Edward Dryden, Eusebio Cantu Torres, Eusebio Torres, Jr., Gladiator Energy Services, L LC, Hope Balderas, Juan Morales Balderas, and Lucia Balderas Lopez, Appellee s

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 07

- 11738

- DCV Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the app ellant ’ s motion for rehearing , and the mo tion is her eby

DENIED.

_________________________________ R ebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of August, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 4.1


 




THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


December 17, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, New York Municipal Portfolio
of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 11


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, New York Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 11 set forth above
(the “Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices
indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on December 16, 2015, in accordance with the
valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The
Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-207275)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing
of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement

for

Members of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (Board) is very concerned with 

maintaining the transparency of the compensation program created by the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA). In an 

effort to foster a fully open and honest environment for claimants and in order to allay 

any concerns within the stakeholder community regarding perceived or actual conflicts of 

interest for Board members, the Board releases the following information for its 

Members: 

Board Member’s Name: James E. Lockey, M.D. 

Job Title and Current Employer: Professor of Environmental Health and Internal 

 Medicine

 University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine and

 University Environmental Health Foundation 

 Cincinnati, Ohio 

Biographical Information: Dr. Lockey served as the Director of the Division of 

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Environmental Health at the 

University of Cincinnati from 1986 to 2005. Current appointments and activities of Dr. 

Lockey include Professor of Medicine (Pulmonary Medicine) and Professor of 

Environmental Health (Occupational and Environmental Medicine) at the University of 

Cincinnati; Member of the Expert Panel of the Fernald II Worker Settlement Fund; 

Member of the United Auto Workers - GM and United Auto Workers - Delphi 

Occupational Health Advisory Boards. 

Expert Witness Experience: Dr. Lockey participated as an expert witness for the 

Department of Justice in litigation related to W.R. Grace in Libby, Montana.

DOE/AWE Sites Where a Conflict of Interest Exists: Fernald, Mound, Portsmouth, 

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25), Y-12, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X10), and W.R. Grace Company (inclusive of all five AWE facilities owned by the W.R. 

Grace Company located in New Jersey, Tennessee (two sites), Maryland, and Florida). 

Subject Matters Where a Conflict of Interest Exists: Specific party matters involving 

the University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, the University Environmental Health 

Foundation, the Physician Panel for the Fernald II Workers Settlement Fund, the Ohio 

Bureau of Workers Compensation, or the Professional Safety Management Company; 

Part B claims or SEC petitions filed by individual Department of Energy (DOE)

employees whose Part E cases were reviewed by Dr. Lockey under the auspices of the 

DOE Physician’s Panel. 
Conflicted Sites/Subject Matters Regarding Which the Board Member Has 

Received Permission to Participate: Dr. Lockey has not received permission to 

participate in specific party matters involving the abovementioned conflict of interest 

concerns.
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

Certification Pursuant
 to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
 Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Concord EFS, Inc. (the Company) on Form
 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
 Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward T. Haslam,
 Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1)     
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
 Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2)     
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: November
 13, 2002 | By: /s/ Edward
 T. Haslam
|------------------------- | -------------------------
|                          |                          
|                          | Edward T.
 Haslam        
|                          | Chief Financial
 Officer
Exhibit6

COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S. READERS ON CANADA-U.S.REPORTING DIFFERENCE

In theUnited States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition ofan explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when thereis a change in accounting principles that has a material effect on thecomparability of the company's financial statements, such as thechanges described in Notes 1(n)(i) – Variable Interest Entities;1(n)(ii) – Investments in Hotel Partnerships & Corporations;and 1(n)(iii) –Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share - to theCorporation's consolidated financial statements as at December31, 2005 and 2004, and for each of the years in the two-year periodended December 31, 2005 which are contained herein. Our report to theshareholders dated March 8, 2006, which is contained herein, isexpressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards which do notrequire a reference to such a change in accounting principles in theauditors' report when the change is properly accounted for andadequately disclosed in the financial statements.

/s/KPMG LLP Chartered Accountants

Toronto, CanadaMarch 8, 2006

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6268

ROBERT FROST, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MIKE D. ILLES, Administrator, in his official

capacity and Individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 05-6643

ROBERT FROST, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MIKE D. ILLES, Administrator, in his official

capacity and Individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-04-943-8-17BI; CA-04-943-8-JFA)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 5, 2005
- 2 -

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Frost, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II,

WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Robert Frost, Jr., appeals

the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Frost v. Illes, Nos. CA-04-943-8-17BI; CA-04-

943-8-JFA (D.S.C. filed Feb. 7, 2005 & entered Feb. 8, 2005;

Mar. 23, 2005). We deny Frost’s motion for relief from judgment

and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED