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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EZEQUIEL GARCIA-GARCIA, also known as Ezequiel Chuck Garcia,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-2643-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezequiel Garcia-Garcia (Garcia) appeals the 18-month within-guidelines 

sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Garcia challenges 

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, urging that it is greater than 

necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He maintains 

that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply because U.S.S.G. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50309 Document: 00512889165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2015
No. 14-50309

§ 2L1.2 is not supported by empirical data, acknowledging that the argument 

is foreclosed by United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 

(5th Cir. 2009).

Although Garcia concedes that this court applies plain error review when 

a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the sentence in the district 

court, he nevertheless contends that the proper standard of review is abuse of 

discretion. Because he did not raise his challenge to the reasonableness of his 

sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States 

v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

Garcia has not demonstrated any plain error in connection with his 

sentence. The district court considered his mitigation arguments, concluding 

that a sentence at the low end of the applicable guidelines range was sufficient, 

but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in 

§ 3553(a). Garcia has not shown that the district court failed to give proper 

weight to any particular § 3553(a) factor or that his sentence represents a 

“clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that he seeks to have 

this court reweigh the § 3553(a) factors, this court will not do so. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Garcia’s arguments that § 2L1.2 lacks 

an empirical basis and that he returned primarily because he has lived in the 

United States for almost all of his life are insufficient to rebut the presumption 

of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 

(5th Cir. 2008). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50309 Document: 00512889165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2015
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 DrugMax, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jugal K. Taneja, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with
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/ Jugal K. TanejaJugal K. TanejaChief Executive OfficerNovember 10, 2004
#### OMAR M. WRIGHT v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

March 24, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## March 19, 2012

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2012
- 03
- March 19, 2012

            - Coverage Set for European Cargo Delivery to Space Station
            - NASA Invites Questions via Twitter for Space Station News Briefings
            - First Space Shuttle Takes Flight
            - Spider Web of Stars
            - Stress at Enceladus
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Kelsey, Petty and Senior Judge Bumgardner 

DEBORAH LYNN COOPER 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1083-07-4 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 

BB&T CORPORATION AND 

 HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Jonathan S. Rochkind; Smith, Hudson & Carluzzo, P.C., on brief), 

for appellant. 

 (Daniel E. Lynch; John T. Cornett, Jr.; Williams & Lynch, on brief), 

for appellees. 

 Deborah Lynn Cooper (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that she failed to prove she sustained an injury by accident arising out of her 

employment on October 10, 2005. Claimant also asserts the commission erred when it failed to 

address the deputy commissioner’s findings as to claimant’s credibility. 

 With respect to the first question, we have reviewed the record and the commission’s 

opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the commission in its final opinion. See Cooper v. BB&T Corporation, VWC File 

No. 227-08-53 (April 3, 2007). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

 With respect to the second question, claimant failed to file a motion for reconsideration 

or rehearing after the commission issued its April 3, 2007 review opinion in order to present the 

commission with the argument she now makes on appeal. Thus, Rule 5A:18 bars our 

consideration of this issue because claimant did not provide the commission with the opportunity 

to correct any perceived error. In these circumstances, we will not consider this argument for the 

first time on appeal. See Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 

546, 548 (2003). 

 Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.418

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 178742 dated November 18, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocated telecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until November 18, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated November 18, 2019 No. 673-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 


	
Deputy Head
    	
 
    	
/signature/ A.А.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here

Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE

OF   COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

AND MASS MEDIA

PSRN 1087746736296
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 19, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128376 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128376 

 COA: 251406 

Wayne CC: 02-003303-01 

DARRYL PEALS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. 

l1012 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 19, 2005 

Clerk
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.M., the grandfather,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and

GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellees.

No. 4D19-1479

[November 27, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432018DR000781.

Phillip E. Kuhn, Lakeland, for appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Department of 

Children and Families. 

Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Tallahassee, for appellee, Guardian 

Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., MAY, J., and PHILLIPS, CAROL-LISA, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH JUNE 30, 1998 FORM 10Q REPORT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      82,122,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              120,824,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,173,131
<INVENTORY>                                 30,423,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           239,367,136
<PP&E>                                      45,781,967
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,735,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             299,791,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       78,244,477
<BONDS>                                      6,693,536
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   189,326,133
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,316,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               299,791,281
<SALES>                                    241,973,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           241,973,420
<CGS>                                      162,396,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              162,396,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            69,168,110 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               753,669
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             684,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,723,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,890,100 <F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,833,745 <F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,833,745 <F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23 <F2>
<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES PRETAX NON-RECURRING CHARGES OF $4.5 MILLION.
     APPROXIMATELY $3.0 MILLION WAS INCURRED TO COMPLETE AN
     ACQUISITION ACCOUNTED FOR USING THE POOLING-OF-INTERESTS
     ACCOUNTING METHOD AND THE REMAINDER RELATED TO A FIRE
     IN A BRANCH OFFICE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY AND THE 
     CLOSING OF A WAREHOUSE AND EMBROIDERY OPERATION.  
<F2> A COMPANY THAT WAS ACQUIRED AND ACCOUNTED FOR USING
     THE POOLING-OF-INTERESTS ACCOUNTING METHOD WAS NOT
     SUBJECT TO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES PRIOR TO THEIR 
     ACQUISITION BY THE COMPANY.  NET INCOME AND NET INCOME
     PER SHARE AMOUNTS INCLUDE AN UNAUDITED PROVISION FOR
     FEDERAL AND STATE TAXES AT AN EFFECTIVE RATE OF 40%
     FOR THIS COMPANY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM JOHNSON.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trico Marine Services, 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 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 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):
   Date: November 9, 2006
    
    By:  /s/ Trevor TurbidyTrevor TurbidyChief Executive Officer
#### FRANK VON VOLKUM, APPELLANT, v. SWIFT & CO., RESPONDENT.

Argued October 19, 1944

Decided January 4, 1945.

For the appellant, *David Roslcein.*

For the respondent, Edwards, *Smith & Dawson.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Donges, Perskie, Colie, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— Hone.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Security Savings Bank, FSB; Olathe, KS; Notice of Appointment of 
Receiver

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
section 5(d)(2) of the Home Owners' Loan Act, the Office of Thrift 
Supervision (OTS) has duly appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation as sole Receiver for Security Savings Bank, FSB, Olathe, 
Kansas (OTS No. 06084), on October 15, 2010.

    Dated: October 18, 2010.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-26664 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2
                                                                  ------------

                           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 Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevin Schott, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.

Date:  February 9, 2007                    By:  /s/ KEVIN SCOTT
       ----------------                       --------------------
                                                   Kevin Scott
                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### Wayne M. ALLEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. A. J. MONGER et al., Defendants-Appellants. George T. MOSES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S. R. FOLEY, Jr. et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 76-1125.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 21, 1980.

Before GOODWIN and HUG, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

The above entitled actions are remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of *Brown, et al. v. Allen, et al.,*- U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 1003, 62 L.Ed.2d 745, issued February 19, 1980.
* 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 April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11312 Conference Calendar

FREDERICK LYNN MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus K.J. WENDT, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution - Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CV-1306-A

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Frederick Lynn Mitchell, federal prisoner #26943-177, appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion filed without proper authorization. In his petition, he sought to challenge his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base. Mitchell arguedNo. 03-11312 -2- that (1) his conviction was void because the statutes under which he was convicted were uncodified; (2) the indictment was defective because it failed to allege the essential elements of the offense; (3) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense; (4) he was actually innocent of the offense of conviction; and (5) the “fair warning doctrine” was violated because the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The district court correctly construed the petition as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because Mitchell was attacking the legality of his conviction rather than the manner of execution of his sentence. Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). Nor has Mitchell shown that his case fits within the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KEITH McCRAY.

May 19, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### HUEI SHENG TUNG AND JENNIE S. TUNG v. MIRNA REYES.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JESSIE WHITE.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
# Sitemap

## January 08, 2010

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2010
- 01
- January 08, 2010

            - NASA’s Space Shuttle Crew in Washington, Available for Interviews
            - Jupiter’s Moons
            - Charles Bolden honors Fred Haise with the Agency’s Ambassador of Exploration Award
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Scott Epperson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC24 (the "ExchangeAct periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Trustee and Certificate Administrator,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, asOperating Advisor, Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, asPrimary Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, asServicing Function Participant for the Certificate Administrator, andComputershare Trust Company, National Association, as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Custodian.

 

 

 

Dated:March 17, 2023

 

 

/s/ Scott Epperson

Scott Epperson

Chief Executive Officer

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2106

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Bryan R. Dunn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 16, 2011

Filed: October 4, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bryan Dunn appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after revoking his

supervised release. Upon careful review, we reject Dunn’s arguments on appeal, and

we conclude that the revocation sentence of 12 months in prison with 19 months of

supervised release was not unreasonable, see United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107,

1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court,

and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.