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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51177

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

ISMAEL HOLGUIN HERRERA

Defendant-Appellant

- - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion April 17, 2002, 5 Cir., 2002, _____F.3d____)

(July 23, 2002)

Before KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, 

SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, 

BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit

Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested

a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of

the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the

court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. 

The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs.
================================================================================

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 High  Tide  Ventures,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with  the  requirements  of  Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  November 14, 2005


/s/ Brent Peters
---------------------------------------
Brent Peters, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elizabeth Kroll, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.), rendered April 18, 1989, convicting her of scheme to defraud in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree (three *718counts), grand larceny in the third degree (10 counts), and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying her motion for a severance on the ground that defenses which might be offered by her codefendants would be antagonistic to her defense. The proof against the defendant and her codefendants was virtually identical since all of them were charged with participating in the same scheme to defraud. Furthermore, the ground advanced simply did not constitute "good cause” to order separate trials *(see,*CPL 200.40 [1]; *see also, People v Stuckey,*147 AD2d 724; *People v Griffin,*135 AD2d 730).

Nor do we find error in the trial court’s denial, without a hearing, of the defendant’s motion to controvert a search warrant. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued contained more than enough information to satisfy the court that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants were engaging in conduct which constituted the crimes, among others, of scheme to defraud and grand larceny. The defendant failed to make a "preliminary showing that a false statement, made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth”, was included in the affidavit, and thus no hearing was required *(Franks v Delaware,*438 US 154, 155).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Kooper, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3776

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Luis Raul Cervantes, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 2006 Filed: December 14, 2006

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Luis Raul Cervantes appeals the 188-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred by de nying Cervantes a mitigating-role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We find no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Cervantes failed to prove hi s entitlement to a reduction. See United States v.-2- O’Dell , 204 F.3d 829, 837 (8th Cir. 2000) (burde n of proof and standard of proof). Cervantes, who was admittedly transporting drugs by car from California to Minnesota for another individual, presented little evidence concerning his role relative to those of other participants in the offens e, and his status as a courier did not itself entitle him to a reduction. See United States v. Alverez , 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2000) (courier role does not automatically ju stify mitigating-role reduction given that transportation is necessary to drug distribution; role is determined by participant’s acts in relation to relevant conduct for whic h participant is held accountable and by measuring participants’ relative culpability).
We have carefully reviewed the reco rd in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous i ssues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

|   | (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/                 Willis Hale                                      |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Willis                Hale                                                |   |
| Principal                Executive OfficerDecember                3, 2007 |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11583]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-343-016]


 NorAm Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Refund Report

April 30, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 25, 1996, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing a Refund Report related to the refunds issued 
pursuant to Article VIII of its Rate Case Settlement in Docket No. 
RP94-343.
    NGT states that the refunds were made in the form of credits to 
customers' bills during the month of March 1996, and that the detail 
computations were included with each customer's bill. NGT further 
states that the report reflects the amounts of refunds, including 
interest computed in accordance with the Commission's regulations, made 
to each customer.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR, 385.211). All such protests 
should be filed on or before May 7, 1996. Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11583 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a)
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Charles Huntzinger, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Imperial Parking
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 24, 2004
    /s/ Charles HuntzingerCharles HuntzingerChief Executive Officer
<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 Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Angelo
J. Di Lorenzo, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, as amended; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.



Date:  August 15, 2005

/s/ Angelo J. Di Lorenzo
---------------------------------------
Angelo J. Di Lorenzo
President and Chief Executive Officer



                                       24
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11176]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2129]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Actions in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

May 1, 1996.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Opposition to 
this petition must be filed May 21, 1996. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

Subject: Amendment of the Commission's Regulatory Policies Governing 
Domestic Fixed Satellites and Separate International Satellite Systems. 
(IB Docket No. 95-41)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 4
Subject: Preemption of Local Zoning Regulation of Satellite Earth 
Stations (IB Docket No. 95-59)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 8
Subject: Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, Vacating the 
EEO Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the 
Commission's Rules to Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines (MM Docket No. 
96-16)
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1
Subject: Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996; Open Video Systems (CS Docket No. 96-46)
    Telephone Company-Cable; Television Cross-Ownership Rules, Sections 
63-54--63-58 (CC Docket No. 87-266 (Terminated))
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11176 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Daniel DONSKY, Respondent.

No. 96-SC-305-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 20, 1996.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

This cause having come before the Court for review wherein the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association adjudged the Respondent guilty of three counts of professional misconduct in his representation of a client, Gregory Crook, in a criminal matter pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court.

In June 1994 Respondent agreed to represent client on a criminal felony charge. Client asked Respondent to fight his criminal indictment in the district court, and not to waive the case to the grand jury. Contrary to his client’s wishes, Respondent waived the case to the grand jury.

SCR 3.130(1.2)(a) provides “[a] lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation ... and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”

Count two charges Respondent with violation of SCR 3.130(1.3) for his failure to appear at his client’s first arraignment and his failure to move the court for bond reduction at the second scheduled arraignment in August of 1994. SCR 3.130(1.3) provides “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

Count three charges Respondent with violation of SCR 3.130(1.4)(a) and (b) for failure and refusal to communicate with his client concerning the status of representation of the legal matter entrusted to him. For over a five-month period the client made numerous attempts to contact Respondent at his office and home, however Respondent refused to return client’s calls and failed to provide him information about the status of his case.

The Kentucky Bar Association sent a certified letter containing the above charges to Respondent and its receipt shows Respondent to have received the same. Despite this notice, Respondent has failed to file an answer to the above charges and has in no way or manner tried to respond to any of the above allegations.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence adequately supports the findings and recommendations of the Kentucky Bar Association, and we adopt its recommendation that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a six-month period of time to run concurrently with charges pending in 96-SC-303-KB.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the Respondent, Daniel Donsky, be and is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for a period of six months, and until such farther time as he is reinstated to the practice of law by order of this Court pursuant to SCR 3.510.

The Respondent is directed to pay the costs of this action in the amount of $130.74 *258and is directed to pay restitution to his client in the amount of $800.00.

Pursuant to SCR 3.390, the Respondent shall within ten days of the date of the entry of this order notify all clients in writing of his inability to represent them and to furnish photostatic copies of said letters of notice to the Director of the Kentucky Bar Association.

All concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

D.R, the Mother, and J.C., the Father,

Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

and GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellees.

Nos. 4D21-1293 & 4D21-1397

[September 15, 2021]

Consolidated appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Palm Beach County; Ashley Zuckerman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-

2019-DP-000810-XXXX-MB.

Carla Lowry, Fort Lauderdale, and Brooke Elvington, Dunedin, for 

appellant D.R., the Mother.

William DiRenzo, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant J.C., the Father.

Andrew Feigenbaum of the Department of Children and Families, West 

Palm Beach, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sarah Todd 

Weitz, Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Tallahassee, for appellee

Guardian ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CONNER, C.J., FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 102 (Friday, May 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 28851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Clinical Trials and Clinical Applications II.
    Date: June 28, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jennifer C. Schiltz, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20817, 240-276-5864, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#345e515a5a5d5251461a47575c5d58404e745a5d5c1a535b42"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f9f6fdfdfaf5f6e1bde0f0fbfaffe7e9d3fdfafbbdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

     Dated: May 24, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11293 Filed 5-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>