alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 09-10735

Summary Calendar

BRENDA LEE FORD,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN ELAINE CHAPMAN, Federal Medical Center-Carswell,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No.4:09-CV-145

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brenda Lee Ford, federal prisoner # 26255-077, was sentenced to a

324-month term of imprisonment following a 1995 conviction for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. Ford has appealed the district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition challenging the method used by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to compute

the good time credit against her sentence authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 24, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-10735 Document: 00511061365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
No. 09-10735

 Under our case law, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) “makes clear that good time credit must be 1

earned by a prisoner on an annual basis; it is not awarded in advance.” Sample, 406 F.3d at

312. Accordingly, a case alleging loss of good time credit becomes ripe when the alleged

accrued credit creates an “immediate injury” to the prisoner that this court could redress.

2

Regardless whether Ford’s sentence is computed on the basis of the BOP’s

interpretation of § 3624(b) or her own, Ford’s release is not imminent. In light

of the “temporally distant and speculative nature of [Ford’s] claim,” she has

failed to establish an “immediate injury” that would be redressed by the relief

that she seeks. See Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005). We

conclude that Ford’s § 2241 petition is not ripe for review, and we dismiss the 1

appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Case: 09-10735 Document: 00511061365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2010
|                                   |                                    |                          |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT    |
|                                   |                                    |                          |
| Subsidiary                        | State or Province of Incorporation | Country of Incorporation |
| Cantaloupe Solutions Canada, Inc. | British Columbia                   | Canada                   |
| Cantaloupe International, Inc.    | Delaware                           | United States            |
| Cantaloupe Systems, Inc.          | Delaware                           | United States            |
| Stitch Networks Corporation       | Delaware                           | United States            |
| USAT Capital Corp, LLC.           | Pennsylvania                       | United States            |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Suresh Ramsingh, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from *557a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered February 25, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The defendant also purportedly appeals from an order of the same court entered June 5, 1986, which denied his postconviction motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the purported appeal from the order entered June 5, 1986, is dismissed, as the defendant did not move for a certificate granting leave to appeal to this court from that order (see, CPL 450.15, 460.15); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The issue of the reliability of the information transmitted to the arresting officer has not been preserved for appellate review. At no point was this issue raised at the suppression hearing in such a manner and at such a time as to fairly apprise the court and the prosecutor of the nature and scope of the matter contested, and to allow the necessary evidentiary treatment and advocacy to be pursued *(see, People v Thompson,*124 AD2d 687, 688). Indeed, as a result of the defendant’s failure to offer a proper challenge to the reliability of the transmitted information, the People were not required to produce the officer who transmitted the information at the suppression hearing and any challenge to the People’s failure to do so is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v McAllister,*143 AD2d 687). In any event, we find that the transmitted information constituted probable cause and that the actions of the officer who received the information were cloaked with a presumption that they were based upon such probable cause *(see, People v Lypka,*36 NY2d 210; *People v Muriell,*128 AD2d 554).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Dennis,*125 AD2d 325; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GATEWAY 2000,
INC.'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         273,987
<SECURITIES>                                    21,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                  511,890
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,230
<INVENTORY>                                    376,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,330,076
<PP&E>                                         489,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,832,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          884,118
<BONDS>                                          5,741
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,541
<OTHER-SE>                                     839,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,832,631
<SALES>                                      4,316,845
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,316,845
<CGS>                                        3,595,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,595,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,422
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,887
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,887
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the year ended April 30, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,207,000
<SECURITIES>                                    74,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,231,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (81,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,332,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,809,000
<PP&E>                                         611,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (223,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,038,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,793,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       180,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,031,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,038,000
<SALES>                                      7,653,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,653,000
<CGS>                                        3,602,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,128,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,136,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,136,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,136,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending July 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

Principal Financial Officer

September 14, 2012
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 33-66250, 33-80425, 33-89036, 333-18337 and 333-68907) of Aseco
Corporation of our report dated May 10, 1999, except of Note O, as to which the
date is July 9, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Aseco Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended March 28, 1999.


                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
July 9, 1999
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-2018-0025-3789

Holroyd Precision Rotors, Inc:

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 failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4917

Scosche Industries, Inc:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5829

Magna Electronics: 

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

TheBoard of Directors

Cymer, Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-16559, No.333-99975, No. 333-88616, No. 333-67491, No. 333-48242, No. 333-69736, No.333-58554, No. 333-109544, No. 333-118496, and No. 333-127748) on Form S-8and in the registration statements (No. 333-88496 and No. 333-39101) onForm S-3 of Cymer, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2006, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Cymer, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for eachof the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule II, management’s assessment of internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, whichreports appear in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cymer,Inc.

 

Our report dated March 8, 2006 on management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2005 expresses our opinion that Cymer, Inc. did not maintaineffective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2005because of the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of theobjectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph thatstates the Company had inadequate internalcontrols over the accounting for income taxes.

 

 
|   | /s/ KPMG LLP |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

 

San Diego, CaliforniaMarch 13, 2006

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14377-14378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6623]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 22 and 52

[Federal Acquisition Circular 90-23 Correction]


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Technical Correction

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration 
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council are issuing a correction to Federal 
Acquisition Circular 90-23 published on December 28, 1994, at 59 FR 
67010. Miscellaneous typographical, editorial, and technical errors 
appeared in the following areas: FAR Case 91-13--Acquisition of Utility 
Services, FAR Case 93-27--Cost Accounting Standards Applicability and 
Thresholds, and in FAR Case 90-62--Construction Contracting.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beverly Fayson at (202) 501-4755, 
General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, Washington, DC 20405.

Corrections


41.501  [Corrected]

    1. In the Federal Register issue of December 28, 1994, under FAR 
Case 91-13, on page 67022, under 41.501, in the third column, in 
paragraph (d)(3), in the second line from the bottom of the paragraph 
following the word ``paragraphs'', ``(f)'' and ``(i)'' should read 
``(d)(6)'' and ``(d)(4)'', respectively.


FAR Case 93-27  [Corrected]

    2. In the same issue under FAR Case 93-27, on page 67042, in the 
second column, under EFFECTIVE DATE, in the first line at the top, 
``February 27, 1994'' should read ``February 27, 1995''.


52.236-27  [Corrected]

    3. In the same issue under FAR Case 90-62, on page 67050, in the 
second column, under paragraph (a), second line from the top, 
``Investigations'' should read ``Investigation''.

    [[Page 14378]] Dated: March 10, 1995.
C. Allen Olson,
Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy, General Services 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6623 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4170

Tianhai Electric North America:

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