alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10918 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LUIS ZAMORA-MAGDALENO, also known as Roberto Madero-Sanchez Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-10-1
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Zamora-Magdaleno raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10918

2 7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Project Category and Billing Category Hours

PG&E Corporation, et al. (Case No. 19-30088 (DM))

For the Period April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019

Summary by Project Category and Billing Category

Total 

Compensation

Exhibit A

PwC LLP - Management, Tax and Advisory Consultants to the Debtors

Fixed Fee Services

Claims Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-B

Claims Coding 69.30 $6,833.00

Subtotal - Claims Services 69.30 $6,833.00

Internal Audit Assessment Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-F

Internal Audit Assessment Services 15.00 $21,600.00

Subtotal - Internal Audit Assessment Services 15.00 $21,600.00

Compliance Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-H

Compliance Services 141.60 $0.00

Subtotal - Compliance Services 141.60 $0.00

Controls Testing Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-I

Controls Testing Services 879.00 $136,250.00

Subtotal - Controls Testing Services 879.00 $136,250.00

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Fixed Fee Services 1,104.90 $164,683.00

Hourly Services

E-Discovery Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-K

Project Management 70.80 $24,871.20

Forensic Collections 302.40 $61,227.80

Subtotal - E-Discovery Services 373.20 $86,099.00

Rate Case Support Services Retention Exhibit #: 01-L

Rate Case Support Services 102.20 $40,684.00

Subtotal - Rate Case Support Services 102.20 $40,684.00

Strategic Analysis Services Retention Exhibit #: 03

Project Management Office 127.50 $68,639.00

Accounting & Reporting Services 1,787.20 $906,701.50

Tax Services 32.10 $19,935.80

Travel Time - Nonworking (@ 50%) 3.00 $1,335.00

Subtotal - Strategic Analysis Services 1,949.80 $996,611.30

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Hourly Services 2,425.20 $1,123,394.30

Friday, June 28, 2019

Page 1 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2805-1 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 13:58:28 Page 1

of 2
Project Category and Billing Category Hours

PG&E Corporation, et al. (Case No. 19-30088 (DM))

For the Period April 1, 2019 through April 30, 2019

Summary by Project Category and Billing Category

Total 

Compensation

Exhibit A

PwC LLP - Management, Tax and Advisory Consultants to the Debtors

Case Administration

Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations Retention Exhibit #: Case

Employment Applications and Other Court Filings 7.40 $4,070.00

Subtotal - Bankruptcy Requirements and Other Court Obligations 7.40 $4,070.00

Subtotal - Hours and Compensation - Case Administration 7.40 $4,070.00

Total - Hours and Compensation Sought for Reimbursement 3,537.50 $1,292,147.30

Friday, June 28, 2019

Page 2 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2805-1 Filed: 07/01/19 Entered: 07/01/19 13:58:28 Page 2

of 2
**Exhibit31.1**

**Certificationof the Principal Executive OfficerPursuant toRules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) under the Exchange Act**

I, PaulPluschkell, certify that:

1.      I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HyperFeed Technologies, Inc.;

2.      Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this 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 report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    designedsuch disclosure 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 consolidated subsidiary,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this 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;

(c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing 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 or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 8, 2006
|        |   | /s/ Paul Pluschkell                   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   | Paul Pluschkell                       |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY GRANT PRYSOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00171-HMH-1; 

7:16-cv-02251-HMH)

Submitted: March 24, 2017 Decided: April 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Grant Prysock seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The 

orders are 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 Prysock 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 before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### EDNA MAE BARKER v. JAMES G. BARKER.

(Filed 11 October, 1950.)

Divorce and Alimony § 5d—

In an action for alimony without divorce, G.S. 50-16, on the ground of mistreatment constituting constructive abandonment, the absence of an allegation that defendant’s misconduct was without adequate provocation, is fatal, and judgment in plaintiff’s favor will be set aside on appeal, and the cause remanded for dismissal unless plaintiff moves in apt time to amend. G.S. 1-131.

Appeal by defendant from *Crisp, Special Judge,*June Term, 1950, of WlLKES.

*Whicker & Whicker and Trivette, Hojshouser ■& Mitchell for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Boiuie & Bowie and W. H. McElwee for defendant, appellant. ■*■■■

Devest, J.

This was a suit for alimony without divorce under G.;S; 50-16. The plaintiff alleged as the basis of ber suit that the defendant had neglected and mistreated her, and. had abused and assaulted her, had threatened her life and driven her from home, and “by his conduct ha.s made her burdens unbearable and life intolerable.” In this Court the defendant demurred *ore tenus*on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for that nowhere in the complaint did the plaintiff allege that the indignities offered to Iyer person or his conduct in causing her to leave home were without adequate provocation on her part.

An examination of the complaint shows that this material averment was not incorporated in the complaint. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that this averment, in connection with allegations such as are contained in the plaintiff’s complaint as ground for relief, is essential- and its omission fatal to the plaintiff’s cause of action. *Best v. Best,*228 N.C. 9, 44 S.E. 2d 214; *Lawrence v. Lawrence,*226 N.C. 624, 39 S.E. 2d 807; *Pearce v. Pearce,*225 N.C. 571, 35 S.E. 2d 636; *Howell v. Howell,*223 N.C. 62, 25 S.E. 2d 169; *Pollard v. Pollard,*221 N.C. 46, 19 S.E. 2d 1; *Carnes v. Carnes,*204 N.C. 636, 169 S.E. 222; *Garsed v. Garsed,*170 N.C. 672, 87 S.E. 45.

In accord with the established rule and on authority of the cases cited the demurrer to the complaint is sustained. The judgment below predicated upon the complaint must be held for error *(Tucker v. Baker,*86 N.C. 1). The action is remanded to the Superior Court of Wilkes' County with instruction that same be dismissed unless within apt time *496the plaintiff moves for leave to amend under G.S. 1-131. *White v. Charlotte,*207 N.C. 721, 178 S.E. 219; *Watson v. Lee County,*224 N.C. 508 (513), 31 S.E. 2d 535.

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,182
<INVENTORY>                                     41,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,553
<PP&E>                                          64,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,033
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 281,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,864
<BONDS>                                        189,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   281,853
<SALES>                                        225,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,765
<CGS>                                          165,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.5

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors and Stockholders

PennantPark Investment Corporation and its Subsidiaries

 

 

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting referred to in our reports dated November 19, 2020, (appearing in the accompanying Form 10-K) also included an audit of the senior securities table of PennantPark Investment Corporation and its Subsidiaries (the Company) appearing in Part II, Item 7 in this Form 10-K. This table is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits of the consolidated financial statements.

 

In our opinion, the senior securities table, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

 

/s/ RSM US LLP

 

New York, New York

November 19, 2020
Exhibit
15
   KPMG logo
  Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
   
   The Board
of Directors
 Cellcom
Israel Ltd.:
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-141639) on Form S-8   of Cellcom Israel Ltd. of our
report dated March 2, 2010, with respect to the consolidated statements of
financial position of Cellcom Israel Ltd. and subsidiaries (“the Company”), as
of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated statements of
income, consolidated statements of comprehensive income, consolidated statements
of changes in equity and consolidated statements of cash flows for the years
then ended, andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report
on Form 20-F  of Cellcom Israel Ltd.
  Our
report refers to a change in accounting policy with respect to recognizing
losses from subsidized equipment sold together with a fixed-term service
contract that includes minimum guaranteed revenue. Also, this same report refers
to the fact that the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2009 have been translated into United States dollars
(“dollars”) solely for the convenience of the reader. The consolidated financial
statements expressed in New Israeli Shekels have been translated into dollars on
the basis set forth in Note 2D of the notes to the consolidated financial
statements.
  /s/
Somekh Chaikin
 Somekh
      ChaikinCertified
      Public Accountants (lsr.)Member
      Firm of KPMG International
  Tel Aviv,
Israel
  March 2,
2010
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Alan
Kirschbaum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 operations of the Company.




/s/    
      Alan
      KirschbaumAlan
      Kirschbaum
                  Chief
      Financial Officer


May 15,
2009


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
---

CONSENT OF ROBERT MICHAUD

The undersigned hereby consents to: (i) the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled “Technical Report Update on the Roca Honda Project, McKinley County, New Mexico, U.S.A.” dated August 6, 2012, in
relation to (a) the Form 40-F Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2013, and any amendments thereto (the “Form 40-F”), of Energy Fuels Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission, (b) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the period ended December 31, 2013 (the “AIF”) and (c) the Management Information Circular of the Company dated July 15, 2013, and the documents incorporated by reference
therein (the “Circular”); and (ii) the incorporation by reference of such disclosure into (a) the Company’s Form S-8 Registration Statement, being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments
thereto (the “S-8”), and (b) the Company’s Form F-10 Registration Statement, being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any amendments thereto (the “F-10”).

I also consent to: (i) the use of my name in the AIF, the Circular, the Form F-10 and the Form 40-F; (ii) the incorporation by reference of the Form 40-F, and the AIF into Form S-8; and (iii) the incorporation by reference of the Form 40-F, the AIF
and the Circular into the Form F-10.

(Signed)“Robert Michaud” 
Robert Michaud, Professional Engineer

Date: March 28, 2014

|RPA Inc.55
      University Ave. Suite 501 | Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T+1
      (416) 947 0907 | www.rpacan.com
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------

---
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5385 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri, as 

the ‘‘Sgt. Amanda N. Pinson Post Office’’. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5385 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SGT. AMANDA N. PINSON POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, 

4 Missouri, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Sgt. 

5 Amanda N. Pinson Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Amanda N. 

10 Pinson Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5244    Filed: 01/02/20    Entered: 01/02/20 08:16:49    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5244    Filed: 01/02/20    Entered: 01/02/20 08:16:49    Page 2 of2
Exhibit 10.38


 




	
   

  	
  THE
  STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  CHAIRMAN

  Thomas B. Getz



  COMMISSIONERS

  Graham J. Morrison

  Clifton C. Below

   

   

  	
  

  	
  Tel. (603) 271-2431



  FAX (603) 271-3878

   

  TDD Access: Relay NH

  1-800-735-2964

   

   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

  AND SECRETARY

  Debra A. Howland

  	
  PUBLIC
  UTILITIES COMMISSION

  21 S. Fruit
  Street, Suite 10

  Concord, N.H. 03301-2429

  	
  Website:

  www.puc.nh.gov

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  May 12, 2009

  	
   

  






 


Shirley J. Linn, Esq.

Executive Vice President and General Counsel 

FairPoint Communications, Inc.

521 East Morehead Street

Suite 500 

Charlotte, NC 28202


 


Re:  Amendment to March 31, 2009 Plan for
Utilization of $50,000,000 Set Aside


 


Dear Ms. Linn:


 


This letter is to
advise you that the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission has reviewed
FairPoint’s request for amendment of its March 31, 2009 plan.  Consistent with Section 2.5.3 of the
Settlement Agreement approved by Commission Order No. 24,823, the
Commission has approved your request to use those funds for general working
capital purposes such as operating expenses and capital expenditures.  The Commission’s approval is conditioned on
FairPoint’s commitment to invest additional funds in Commission-approved New
Hampshire projects as follows:


 


$15,000,000 to be spent by December 31, 2010 

$20,000,000 to be spent by December 31, 2011

$30,000,000 to be spent by December 31, 2012


 


The Commission has
determined, in light of FairPoint’s recent filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that allowing FairPoint to use the $50,000,000 for general
working capital at this time is reasonable in order to improve the Company’s
liquidity.  Furthermore, the Commission
has concluded that FairPoint’s commitment to increase capital expenditures in
New Hampshire is appropriate under the circumstances.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ F. Anne Ross

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  F. Anne Ross, Esq.

  
	
   

  	
  General Counsel
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Chiral Quest, Inc.
does hereby certify that:

                  (a)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Chiral Quest,
Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report:) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

                  (b)      information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Chiral Quest, Inc.

Dated: May 15, 2003                       /s/ Alan D. Roth
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Alan D. Roth
                                          President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer