alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 20733 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
FRANK FLORES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 273

- 3

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Frank Flores has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Flores h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 20, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-20733 Document: 00514649538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2018No. 17

- 20733

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. We note, however, that there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment references 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii), which is correct for Flores’s offens e of possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine . The written judgment erroneously describes the nature of the offense as possession with intent to distribute 5 “ kilograms ” or more of methamphetamine. The word “kilograms” shoul d be replaced with “grams” under Nature of Offense. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Hernandez, 719 F. App’x 395, (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Perez

- Gonzalez , 294 F. App’x 854, 855 (5th Cir. 2008). Case: 17-20733 Document: 00514649538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2018
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4453

Valmet, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3997

II-VI Incorporated:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Robert M. Kellman, Respondent, v Kaye L. Kellman, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Same memorandum as in *Kellman v Kellman*([appeal No. 1] 162 AD2d 958 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Reagan, J.—temporary maintenance and custody.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### STATE v. CLARENCE JONES and IDA HAITHCOCK.

(Filed 5 June, 1947.)

Appeal by defendants from *G-rady, Emergency Judge,*at September Criminal Term, 1946, of Durham.

Criminal prosecution upon bill of indictment charging defendants with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors for tbe purpose of sale.

Yerdict: As to 'each defendant guilty as charged in tbe bill of indictment.

Judgment: Pronounced.

Defendants appeal to Supreme Court and assign error.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*W. T. Hatch and J. M. Templeton for defendants, appellants.*

*704Per Curiam.

Due consideration bas been given to all assignments of error presented by appellants on this appeal, and cause for disturbing the judgment below is not made to appear.

Hence, we find

No error.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Michael L. GREER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65220.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

March 28, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 2, 1995.

Charles M. Shaw, James Jay Knappenber-ger, Shaw, Howlett & Knappenberger, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Michael L. Greer, appeals from his judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, for assault in the first degree, armed criminal action, and assault in the second degree. He was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years, a concurrent term of three years, and a consecutive term of six months, respectively.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David H. Lissy, Chief Executive 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.

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/ David H. Lissy
                               -----------------------
                               David H. Lissy
                               Chief Executive Officer

November 9, 2005
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4253 

To prohibit the mass cancellation of student loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. ROMNEY (for himself, Mr. BURR, Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina, Mr. CASSIDY, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the mass cancellation of student loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Account5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) Congress does not hide elephants in 

9 mouseholes; statutory authority has not been pro10 vided to the executive branch of the Federal Govern11 ment to cancel student loans on a mass scale. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4253 IS

1 (2) Through strained readings of statute, lib2 eral interest groups assert that a mass cancellation 

3 event would be legal. 

4 (3) It is unfair for taxpayers who paid student 

5 loans or did not attend college to pay for those who 

6 chose to take student loans. 

7 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON MASS CANCELLATION OF STU8 DENT LOANS. 

9 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

11 provision of law, the Secretary of Education, the 

12 Secretary of the Treasury, or the Attorney General 

13 shall not take any action to cancel or forgive the 

14 outstanding balances, or portion of balances, of cov15 ered loans, except as provided in paragraph (2). 

16 (2) EXEMPTION.—The prohibition described in 

17 paragraph (1) shall not apply to targeted Federal 

18 student loan forgiveness, cancellation, or repayment 

19 programs carried out under the Higher Education 

20 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), under final 

21 regulations as in effect on May 11, 2022. 

22 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered 

23 loan’’ means— 

24 (1) a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under 

25 part B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4253 IS

1 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.; 1087a et seq.; 

2 1087aa et seq.) before, on, or after the date of en3 actment of this Act; or 

4 (2) a loan under the Health Education Assist5 ance Loan Program under title VII of the Public 

6 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et seq.) made be7 fore, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Education, the 

9 Secretary of the Treasury, or the Attorney General may 

10 not implement, or publish in any form, any regulation, or 

11 take any action, that modifies, alters, amends, cancels, 

12 discharges, forgives, or defers the repayment of any stu13 dent debt not expressly permitted within statute or regula14 tion as in effect on March 12, 2020, regarding covered 

15 loans, except to the extent that such regulation or action 

16 reflects the clear and unequivocal intent of Congress in 

17 legislation. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 6872** 

KERRY LEE WOODARD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. KENNETH HORNING; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondent s - Appellees
.

Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Richard D. Bennett , District Judge. ( 1:07

- cv - 03463

- RDB )

Submitted : March 30 , 2010 Decided: May 10 , 2010

Before WILKINSON and M OTZ , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J udge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kerry Lee Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circ uit.2 PER CURIAM: Kerry Lee Woodard seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 22 53(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appe al. 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.

DISMISSE D
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4414

Valmet, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions_03.20.1

9.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This shedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Audited Financial Statements contained in Form 10KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              3,608
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      17,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                       203,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  228,664
<PP&E>                                             21,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (8,741)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    240,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             677,463
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            2,687
<OTHER-SE>                                       (439,204)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      240,946
<SALES>                                         3,161,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,161,116
<CGS>                                           2,511,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,362,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (201,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (201,095)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (201,095)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.08)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986] 

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-38214, 333-38210, 333-112581, 333,112583, 333-148980) and S-3 (File Nos. 333-156609, 333-148743 and 333-172169) of Ener1, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2011 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana




March 10, 2011
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2190

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel