alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre MILLS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-21237.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Andre Mills appeals his guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of more than five grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Mills argues that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and (b) were rendered facially unconstitutional by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Mills concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in *United States v. Slaughter,*238 F.3d 580, 581-82 (5th Cir. 2000) (revised opinion), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 1045, 121 S.Ct. 2015, 149 L.Ed.2d 1015 (2001), which rejected a broad *Ap*prendi-based attack on the constitutionality of that statute. He raises the issue only to preserve it for Supreme Court review. A panel of this court cannot overrule a *400prior panel’s decision in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court. *Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany,*187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir.1999). No such decision overruling *Slaughter*exists. Accordingly, Mills’s argument is foreclosed.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Order entered August 1, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00163 - CV No. 05 - 18 - 00164 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M .A.A., A CHILD On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial Di strict Court

Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1 - 09 - 843 and 1 - 15 - 76



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ July 30, 2018 second motion for extension to file briefs. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the briefs be filed no later than September 17, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
EX-34 (a)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that
management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included
in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those
issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables
portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions
(the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC
has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable
to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the
year ended December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures
as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included
testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing
activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in
compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited
to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company
during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to
determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our
tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by
the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected
transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides
a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007


KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.
member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*



In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, 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 to the best of 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 results of operations of the
     Company.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)        August 7, 2007


<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6917 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 301 East Congress Parkway in Crystal Lake, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘Ryan J. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6917 EH

1 SECTION 1. RYAN J. CUMMINGS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 301 East Congress Parkway in 

4 Crystal Lake, Illinois, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Ryan J. Cummings Post Office Building’’. 

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 ‘‘Ryan J. Cummings 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6917 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postmings Post Office Building’’. in Crystal Lake, Illinois, as the ‘‘Ryan J. Cum- al Service located at 301 East Congress Parkway
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20712]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-85-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
Institution of Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

April 29, 2008.
    On August 29, 2008, the Commission issued an order that instituted 
a proceeding in Docket No. EL08-85-000, pursuant to section 206 of the 
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2005), to consider the 
justness and reasonableness of granting the requested waiver of the 60-
day notice requirement contained in the original Participating Load 
Agreement between the California Independent System Operator 
Corporation and the California Department of Water Resources State 
Water Project. California Independent System Operator Corporation, 124 
FERC ] 61,205 (2008).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL08-85-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20712 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### HARRIS v. VATTER (CHARITY HOSPITAL OF LOUISIANA, Intervenor).

No. 17279.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 18, 1940.

Writ of Certiorari Denied Jan. 6,1941.

For former opinion, see 196 So. 574.

Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Cyril F. Dumaine, of New Orleans, for intervenor-appellant.

Terriberry, Young, Rault & Carroll, of New Orleans, for appelleé.

McCALEB, Judge.

After this cause was submitted on rehearing, counsel for plaintiff filed with us a motion to remand the matter for the purpose of permitting plaintiff to introduce testimony in rebuttal of the evidence given by the defendant’s witnesses. We find that the motion is untimely because it cannot be said that plaintiff was taken by surprise by the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant. Counsel does not show that he requested a continuance from the trial judge and were we to grant this unusual request, it would serve as a precedent to stifle and hinder the orderly processes of justice. Litigation must come to an end.

A careful reconsideration of the merits of this case convinces us that our former decree is correct and that it should be reinstated.

For the reasons assigned, our original opinion and decree herein are reinstated as the final judgment of this Court.

Original decree reinstated.
exv10w26



 






Exhibit 10.26




First Amendment to the Trizec Properties, Inc.

Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan




     WHEREAS, Trizec Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the Trizec Properties, Inc.
Non-Employee Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended by the Board of
Directors of the Company (the “Board”), and the Board has approved and adopted this amendment.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Company amends the Plan, effective August 3, 2004, in the following
respects:


1. Section 4.5(c) shall be deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:





“Interest. Each Account shall be increased or decreased by the Interest credited
to such Account since the prior Determination Date as though the balance of that Account
had been invested in the applicable Valuation Funds chosen by the Participant.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by a duly authorized officer of the
Company, this 3rd day of August, 2004.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	TRIZEC PROPERTIES, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/ Ted R. Jadwin
 	 
	 	Name:  	Ted R. Jadwin 	 
	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and

Corporate Secretary
EXHIBIT 10.12.3  


Amendment No. 11 (the "Amendment") To

Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between

Ray Rodriguez ("Employee") and The Univision Network Limited Partnership ("Company")  


Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 


        1.    Term.    The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31,
2007, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement. 


        2.    Salary.    The annual Base Salary rate will be Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000)
for the annual period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. 


        3.    Effective Date of Amendment.    Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment
will become effective as of December 31, 2004. 


        4.    Other.    The Employment Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of New York, and the parties hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in New York, New York in any dispute arising from or in
connection with this Employment Agreement. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the Employment
Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed. 



	 	 	THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  ROBERT V. CAHILL      
 Robert V. Cahill

Secretary
	/s/  RAY RODRIGUEZ      
 Ray Rodriguez
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT

I,
Peter G. Schoonmaker, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle Gas Resources, 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, in
light 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 financial condition,
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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



/s/PETER G. SCHOONMAKER Peter G. Schoonmaker President and Chief Executive Officer


Date:
March 31, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Ex-10(ff)



 






Exhibit 10(ff)




February 22, 2005




Mr. Steven P. Birdwell

Sea Pines Company, Inc.

P.O. Box 7000

Hilton Head Island, SC 29938



	 	 	 
	RE:

	 	Promissory Note from Sea Pines Associates, Inc. (“Borrower”) to
Wachovia Bank, National Association (“Wachovia ”) in the original principal
amount of $4,000,000.00 dated July 31, 2003, including any amendments (the
"Note”).
	 
	 	 
	

	 	Obligor # 7930620485 Obligation # 1514793






Dear Steve:




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Wachovia has agreed to extend the term of the Note, which will mature or
has matured on November 15, 2005. Accordingly, this letter shall constitute
Wachovia’s agreement and formal notice to you as follows:





Extension. Wachovia herby extends, on the same terms and conditions as presently in effect, the
maturity of the Note to February 15, 2006, at which time the outstanding principal balance, accrued
interest and all other amounts due under the Note shall become due and payable. All periodic
payments required under the Note shall be made during this extension period.



No Other Changes. Extension on the maturity date as stated herein is the only change to the Note.
Except as extended by this letter, the Note and all other Loan Documents (as defined in the Note)
shall continue in full force and effect. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.




Very truly yours,



Wachovia Bank, National Association



By:/s/ Phillip H. Rhiner

      Phillip H. Rhiner, Assistant Vice President
#### Jody Lee WHARTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 45662-45665.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 28, *1972.*

Kenneth L. Sanders, Houston, for Jody Lee Wharton.

*264Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Jack Bodiford, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

These appeals arise out of convictions for robbery by assault (No. 45,662), forgery (No. 45,663), felony theft (No. 45,664), and burglary with intent to commit theft (No. 45,665). In the forgery case, the punishment was assessed at seven years. In the others, the punishment in each case was assessed at ten years.

On August 27, 1971, the appellant entered pleas of guilty before tne court after waiving trial by jury in each case. He was duly admonished of the consequences of his plea in each case before the particular plea was accepted. He further agreed that the evidence to support the pleas of guilty could be offered at the same time.

In each case, the evidence was stipulated in accordance with Article 1.15, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. Included within such stipulations which were introduced was a written sworn judicial confession in each case.

On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in each case.

Without the necessity of passing upon any possible defects in the other stipulated evidence, the judicial confession introduced was substantially in the form approved in Bell v. State, 455 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). See, also, DeGay v. State, 455 S.W.2d 205 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). A judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficient to support a plea of guilty. See Beaty v. State, 466 S.W.2d 284, 286 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), and cases there cited.

The evidence in each case is, thus, suf fi • cient to sustain the convictions.

In his pro se brief, appellant complains that the court erred in failing to make available to him the appellate record for the purpose of preparing a pro se brief.

First, it should be noted that we are not dealing with a case where appointed appellate counsel has determined that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Second, upon request, the court ordered the appellate record in each case made available to the appellant. The record in these cases further reflects that only four days prior to the filing of the pro se brief, the appellant examined the appellate record from 9:30 to 11:50 a. m. on July 6, 1972, and stated the record was “in order.”

We find no merit to appellant’s contention.

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBERTS, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12498-003]


Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit 
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To 
Intervene, and Competing Applications

September 3, 2008.
    On March 13, 2008, Ocean Renewable Power Company, LLC filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ft. Lauderdale OCGen Power 
Project, located on the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean, near Broward 
County, Florida. No federal land or facilities would be used. The 
project uses no dam or impoundment.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 500 proposed OCGen 
module units, with a total installed capacity of 150-megawatts, (2) a 
proposed 12-mile-long, 33-kilovolt transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual 
generation of 500-gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Wells, Chairman & Founder, Ocean 
Renewable Power Company, LLC, 2430 NE 199th Street, N. Miami Beach, FL 
33180, phone (305) 936-1515.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis, (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at  http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
12498-003) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20860 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1851

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff–Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Damion M. Wilson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant–Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 10, 2008 Filed: March 19, 2009

___________ Before MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and DOTY 1 , District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Damion M. Wilson pleaded guilty to a singl e count of distribution of five grams or more of a mixture or substance contai ning a detectable amount of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Inthe conditional plea agreement, Wilson2 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the re port and recommendations of the Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United Stat es Magistrate Judgefor the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- reserved his right to appeal the district court’s 2 adverse disposition of his pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment and suppress evidence. Wilson’s primary argument was that there was a material defect in his federal prosecution because federal aut horities had violated the A ttorney General’s Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Inform ants (“CI Guidelines”), which were promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, 533. He argued that such a defect warranted dismissal of the indictment becau se it resulted in an arbitrary and capricious prosecution in violation of his due-process ri ghts. Similarly, Wilson argued that the use of certain evidence in the case violat ed his Fourth Amendment and due-process rights because it was obtained as a direct result of the CI Guidelines violation. After review of the overall record, the district court’s opinion, and the briefs filed on appeal in this court, we affi rm the judgment based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________