alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10875

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS EULALIO RUIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-11-2-A

- - - - - - - - - -

May 13, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.

PER CURIAM:1

Luis Eulalio Ruiz appeals the sentence he received on his

guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to

distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. We have reviewed

the record de novo and find that Ruiz’s prior convictions were not

part of a single common scheme or plan and were not consolidated

for trial or sentencing and thus were not related and therefore

counted separately for the career offender enhancement provision.

See United States v. Garcia, 962 F.2d 479, 482-83 (5th Cir. 1992).
We find no clear error in the district adopting the findings

of the presentence report regarding the amount of drugs

attributable to Ruiz over his unsworn assertion that he did not

negotiate or agree to the sale of an additional four kilograms of

cocaine. See United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943 (5th

Cir. 1994) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 32). 

We have reviewed for plain error Ruiz’s argument raised for

the first time on appeal that the district court erred, under

United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 1993), in

considering negotiated-for sales of cocaine in determining the

amount of drugs attributable for the purposes of invoking the

statutory penalty of § 841(b)(1)(A). See United States v.

Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1994); Fed. R. Crim. P.

52(b). Because the district court sentenced Ruiz according to the

sentencing guidelines, the court did not err in considering the

negotiated-for amounts of cocaine for determining the guideline

sentence. See Mergerson, 4 F.3d at 345-46.

Ruiz’s motion to supplement the record with evidence not

presented to the district court is denied. See Fed. R. App. P.

10(e).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,695]


Parkdale Mills (Formerly Hanesbrands, Inc.) Galax, VA; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated February 2, 2010, petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was issued on January 11, 2010, and the Department's 
Notice of determination will be published soon in the Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that the subject firm did not separate or 
threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as 
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners provided 
additional information regarding the number of workers separated from 
the subject firm.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of May, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-12108 Filed 5-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12133]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than June 4, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 
33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney, Australia; to acquire 
approximately 8.9 percent of the voting shares of Air Lease 
Corporation, Los Angeles, California, and thereby engage de novo in 
leasing activities, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(3) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2010.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-12133 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of MacroChem Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 
| 1) | Company’s report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Form 10-Q”) 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 Company’s Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | /s/  Bernard R. Patriacca                                                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Bernard R. Patriacca

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

Dated: May 15, 2007

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

34
EX-4.9









EXHIBIT 4.9




CONSENT OF EXPERT




     I, Zhaojun Wang, hereby consent to the inclusion and incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form F-8 of Silvercorp Metals Inc. (the “Registration Statement”) of
references to and information derived from the technical report entitled “Technical Report on
Gaocheng Ag-Zn-Pb Project, and Shimentou Au-Ag-Zn-Pb Project, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic
of China” dated April 30, 2008 (the “Incorporated Information”). I also consent to the reference
to my name and to my involvement in the preparation of the Incorporated Information in this
Registration Statement.



	 	 	 
	  /s/ Zhaojun Wang
 

Name: Zhaojun Wang

	 	 






Date: June 15, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6937

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

DENNIS SCOTT MCCULLOUGH, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:06-cr-00389-REP-1) 

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dennis Scott McCullough, Appellant Pro Se. Angela MastandreaMiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dennis Scott McCullough appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) 

motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

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

district court. United States v. McCullough, No. 3:06-cr-00389-

REP-1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2009). 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### CHARLES HAWLEY, Respondent, *v.*WILLIAM HATTER, Appellant.

*Improper evidence*— admission *of, on in'ial at law*— *although result may not be changed by it*•— *new trial granted..*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee. The court at General Term say :

“We are satisfied with the report of the referee in this case. It is sustained by the evidence, and appears to be just. We should affirm the judgment without hesitation, were it not for the error in admitting proof of an offer by the defendant to compromise the claim. This evidence was inadmissible, and might *possibly*have affected the result. We do not think that it did in fact. But the rule has been repeatedly laid down that a new trial must be *135granted when improper evidence has been admitted. *(Baird*v. Gillett, 47 N. Y., 186.)

It would promote justice if appellate courts could disregard such errors, when satisfied that no real injury had been in fact done; in other words, if they could adopt the equity rule. It is difficult, especially in a long .trial, to'avoid making some slight error in regard to the rules of evidence. But practically such errors are not of that importance in their effect upon the result of the trial which they appear to be, when spread out in the printed papers for the appellate courts.

And such courts, especially when not accustomed to the actual trial of cases, are apt to forget the maxim, *summum jus summa injuria. {Lamb*v. *Gamden B. B.,*2 Daly, 475.)

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event, and referee discharged. ”

*J. A.*Dewey, for the appellant. *A. Bees,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

LeaeNed, P. J.

Present — LeaeNed, P. J., Bocees and BoaedmaN, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event; reference discharged.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John A. Featherman, III, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairmanof the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)         The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 11, 2010 |                                   |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                        | /s/  John A. Featherman, III      |
|                        | John  A. Featherman, III          |
|                        | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        | Chairman  of the Board                 |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                            CardioThoracic Systems, Inc.
                 Statement Re: Computations of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Period from
                                                                  June 15, 1995
                                        Year Ended            (date of inception) to
                                    December 31, 1996           December 31, 1996
                                     ---------------             ---------------
<S>                                <C>                       <C>

Net loss                              $ (16,077,413)               $  (997,213)
                                    -----------------            ----------------
                                    -----------------            ----------------

Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                      5,143,319                  2,782,857

Shares related to SAB No. 55,
  64, and 83                              6,666,197                  6,666,197
                                    -----------------            ----------------

Total weighted average
  common shares outstanding              11,809,516                  9,449,054
                                    -----------------            ----------------
                                    -----------------            ----------------

Net loss per share                    $       (1.36)               $     (0.11)
                                    -----------------            ----------------
                                    -----------------            ----------------

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIIT 10.10


                                   AMENDMENT B

         WHEREAS Physiometrix Inc. ("Physiometrix") and Baxter Healthcare
Corporation ("Baxter") entered into a STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AND EXCLUSIVE
DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated May 31st 2000, which was amended by
AMENDMENT A signed October 17, 2000 and both Physiometrix and Baxter wish to
further amend the Agreement, the parties agree to amend such Agreement as
follows:

         In line 1 of Section 11.3 of the Agreement, "To" shall be changed to
          -- Starting in the calendar quarter beginning October 1st 2001, to --;

and,
         In line 4 of Section 11.3 of the Agreement (as amended by AMENDMENT A),
         "October 1st 2000" shall be changed to -- October 1st 2001 --.

         In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed, in duplicate, by their duly authorized officers on the dates set forth
below.


Baxter Healthcare Corporation                Physiometrix Inc.

By:                                          By:
   --------------------------------             -------------------------------
       David C. McKee                                Signature

Title: Corporate Vice President and          Title:
       Deputy General Counsel                       ---------------------------

Date:                                        Date:
      -----------------------------                ----------------------------
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 ofSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Hal M. Krisbergh, the Principal Executive Officerof WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-K/A of WorldGateCommunications, Inc., for the annual period ended December 31, 2004,which this certification accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andinformation contained in the December 31, 2004 Form 10-K/A fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to WorldGate and will be retained byWorldGate and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 
| Dated: January 23, 2006 |   |   /s/ HAL M. KRISBERGH                                               |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   Hal M. Krisbergh                                                   |
|                    |   |   Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6525

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IAN HARTNEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:11-cr-00039-MSD-FBS-1; 4:12-cv-00159-MSD)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ian Hartney, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ian Hartney seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 Hartney 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Quarterly Report of CityFed Financial Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date 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:

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.


                                        CITYFED FINANCIAL CORP.

                                        By: /s/ John W. Atherton, Jr.
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            John W. Atherton, Jr.
                                            Vice President and Treasurer
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)

Date:  April 17, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                       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 and 333-10583)
of our report dated November 15, 1996, on our audits of the financial statements
and financial statement schedule of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. as of September
30, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended September
30, 1996, 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."
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Los Angeles, California
December 26, 1996