alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  | Lobbying Disclosure Act:             SEC. 22. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST IN QUALIFIED BLIND TRUST. |  |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|

|  (a) IN GENERAL.—[Sec. 22(a) and (b) provides for amendments to section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978]	(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to reports filed under title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 for calendar year 1996 and thereafter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Current through April 1, 2019— This compilation includes language from Public Law 104-65, as well as amending language from Public Laws 105-166 and 110-81 and 115-418. These materials are not official  evidence of the laws set forth herein. Sections 112 and 204 of title 1 of the United States Code establish the rules governing which text serves as legal evidence of the laws of the United States.

 For changes, after the closing date of this publication, to provisions of law in this publication, see the United States Code Classification Tables published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives at http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml. |
* 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. 01-51094 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-01-CR-289-ALL-FB

-------------------- June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pedro Espinoza-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally reenter the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Espinoza-Martinez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencingNo. 01-51094 -2- provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively, Espinoza-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Espinoza-Martinez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-06395, 333-10583 and
333-33323) of our report dated November 11, 1997, on our audits of the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. as
of September 30, 1997 and 1996 and for each of the three years in the period
ended September 30, 1997, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected
Financial Data".
 
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
                                /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
                                ----------------------------
                                Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
</TABLE>
 
Los Angeles, California
December 24, 1997
### **Exhibit31.1**

###  

**PRINCIPALEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**UnderRule 13a-14 (a) / 15d-14 (a)**

 

I, Jack R. Ingram,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of XETA Technologies, Inc;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Dated:  February 28, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Jack R. Ingram      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Jack R. Ingram          |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00001-JCC-4; 1:11-cv-00402-JCC)

Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Lisa Owings, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Steven Donald 

Mellin, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, DC, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
10.35


 


VIA EMAIL


 


February 25,
2009


 


THQ, INC.


29903 Agoura Road


Agoura Hills, CA 91301


Attn:  Mr. Jim Kennedy


 


Re:    Game Publishing for Nintendo DSi


 


Dear Nintendo DS Publisher:


 


As you know, your company
(the company to whom this letter is addressed, hereafter referred to as “Publisher”)
is party to that certain Confidential License Agreement for Nintendo DS
(Western Hemisphere) with Nintendo of America Inc. (the “License Agreement”).  In 2009, Nintendo of America Inc. (“Nintendo”)
will launch the Nintendo DSi handheld video game system (“Nintendo DSi”) in the
Western Hemisphere.


 


Nintendo will not be issuing
a new Publishing License Agreement for Nintendo DSi.  Instead, we hereby confirm, and ask that your
company acknowledge that, for purposes of the License Agreement, the term “Nintendo
DS” shall be deemed to include Nintendo DSi, and the License Agreement shall
fully apply to the Nintendo DSi.


 


Publisher agrees that (in
addition to the restrictions and prohibitions on Publisher set forth in Section 3
of the License Agreement) it shall not offer any Game, or other content
(including Nintendo DSiWare) for Nintendo DSi via download or other electronic
means without Nintendo’s prior written consent, which consent Nintendo may
withhold in its sole discretion.  The
parties shall enter into a separate agreement or addendum to the License
Agreement memorializing any agreement pertaining to any such content.


 


Upon our receipt of a copy
of this letter, counter-signed by an employee with authority to bind Publisher,
we will be pleased to welcome you as an approved Publisher for Nintendo DSi.


 

















 


February 25, 2009


 


Information on order
processing, pricing and manufacturing will be available through the Licensing
Department once you have become an approved Publisher for Nintendo DSi.


 


Sincerely,


 


NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.


 


 


 


 


 


Steve Singer


 


Vice President, Licensing


 


ACKNOWLEDGED &
AGREED:


 


 


 


“PUBLISHER” (as defined above)


 




	
  By

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  	
   

  






 


 


 


cc:           David Peterson
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 11


                          MAHASKA INVESTMENT COMPANY
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                                                            March 31,
                                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                                      2001             2000
                                                                                 ---------------  ---------------
<S>                                                                              <C>              <C>
Earnings per Share Information:
-----------------------------------------------------

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding during the year..............................................            3,953,471        4,288,826

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding during the year
  including all dilutive potential shares..................................            3,980,934        4,314,801

Net earnings...............................................................         $    992,137      $ 1,113,332


Earnings per share - basic.................................................         $       0.25      $      0.26

Earnings per share - diluted...............................................         $       0.25      $      0.26
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xun Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.



3.

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.





Date:   March 26, 2012



By: /s/ Jerry G. Mikolajczyk

Jerry G. Mikolajczyk

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Augusta H. Lohman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

January 21,1936.

*Smith, Chambers & Clare,*for the petitioner.

*Joseph A. Cox,*for the public administrator, respondent.

Foley, S.

The application for the revocation of letters of administration previously issued to the public administrator is denied. Letters were originally granted to him by decree dated January 15, 1935. The question then arose as to the jurisdiction of this court, and specifically as to whether the decedent died a resident of the county of New York or a resident of the State of New Jersey. By my decision *(Matter of Lohman,*157 Misc. 169) I found jurisdiction in this court on the basis of a domicile in this county. An appeal is pending from that decision.

The application for revocation is denied as a matter of law under the authority of section 22 of chapter 230 of the Laws of 1898, a period of three months having elapsed since the issuance of letters to the public administrator. It is likewise denied because of the practical situation existing in the estate. To revoke the letters of the public administrator at this time would seriously affect the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner who seeks to revoke such letters claims to be a second cousin. The remoteness of this relationship, the possibility of next of kin of a nearer degree of kinship, and the fact that citation has not issued in this proceeding generally to all the next of kin, known or unknown, require that *930the application should be denied in the discretion of the surrogate. The removal of the public administrator and the appointment of a new administrator would only add expense and further delay in the administration of the estate.

The rights of the petitioner as one of the next of kin will be amply protected in the final accounting of the public administrator when, after proper service of citation upon all persons possibly interested in the estate, an adjudication may be had as to the persons entitled to distribution. The status of the petitioner should properly be tried and determined in the accounting proceeding. Submit decree on notice denying the application accordingly.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2561

To reduce temporarily the duty on Vulkalent E/C.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 16, 2000

Mr. THURMOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To reduce temporarily the duty on Vulkalent E/C.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF DUTY ON VULKALENT E/C.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new subheading:
2

•S 2561 IS

‘‘ 9902.38.30 A mixture of NPhenyl-N-

((trichloromethyl)thio)-

Benzenesulfonamide; calcium

carbonate; and

mineral oil (the

foregoing provided for in subheading

3824.90.28) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-16525) pertaining to the
Physiometrix, Inc. 1991 Stock Plan, 1996 Director Option Plan, and 1996 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and (Form S-8 No. 333-69106) pertaining to the
Physiometrix, Inc. 2000 Supplemental Stock Plan and the 2001 Stock Option Plan, of our report dated February 11, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of
Physiometrix, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|                                     |  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2005 |  |                      

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dolat Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nigar Lila, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.

The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Nigar LilaNigar Lila
  Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDate: January 6, 2009
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000073

24-JAN-2018

01:17 PM