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

No. 03-50183

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 2003.

*418Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles Edward McDonald, McDonald & Associates, Francisco Federico Macias, The Law Office of Francisco F. Macias, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Luis Carlos Vazquez (Vazquez) appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. He contends that the district court erred in failing to conduct an adequate hearing under Fed. R.Crim. P. 44(c) to determine whether any conflict of interest might exist or arise because of his counsel’s joint representation of Vasquez and his co-defendant brother. He argues further that the district court erred in failing to conduct a second hearing pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 44(c) when a conflict became apparent during the sentencing hearing.

Vazquez has failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest in his counsel’s joint representation. *See United States v. Rico,*51 F.3d 495, 509 (5th Cir.1995). Therefore, the district court did not err in allowing the same counsel to represent both Vazquez and his brother; neither did it err in not conducting a second hearing pursuant to Fed. R.Crim. P. 44(c). *See United States v. Newell,*315 F.3d 510, 520 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Lyons,*703 F.2d 815, 820 (5th Cir.1983).

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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-108652 and Form S-3 No. 333-136822) of Empire
Financial Holding Company of our report, based on our audit, dated March 29,
2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Empire Financial
Holding Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006, which report
appears in the 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial Holding
Company.

/S/ MILLER, ELLIN & COMPANY, LLP
Miller, Ellin & Company, LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2007
#### John Davis’ Exrs. et al. *v.*S. P. Hane.

Bills of Exchange — Indorsement' — Fraud — Atta chmenb —• Answer.— Presumptions.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that negotiable paper acquired in the usual course of business and for a valuable consideration, has been indorsed before it came due.

Burden of Proof.

Where the allegations that an indorsement was fraudulent, without consideration, and made when the bill was past due, are denied, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

Special Judge — Oath.

The objection that a special judge was. not sworn cannot be set up in this court for the first time.

Stamping Bills of Exchange.

The fact that a bill of exchange had not been stamped according to the acts of Congress does not operate to render it invalid.

APPEAL EROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.

February 1, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

This appeal brings before us for revision a judgment of the court below preferring and sustaining the claim of the appellee as the indorser and holder of two bills of exchange drawn by William E. Williams in favor of himself on and accepted by Mittan O. Dillon and indorsed and delivered by Williams to the appellee, in opposition to the claims of the appellants as attaching creditors of Williams.

In the cross-pleading between the parties it is alleged by the appellants and denied by the appellee that the indorsements to the appellee were fraudulent and without consideration and made when the bills were past due, and accepted by appellee with notice of the levy of the attachments in the hands of Dillon. It is insisted for the appellants that notwithstanding the general denials of the answer of the appellee his answer was insufficient in not averring the date of the indorsements and transfers to him and the consideration for which they were made.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, the law presumes, in favor of negotiable paper, and we so regard the bills in' contro*488versy, that it was indorsed before it became due and that the holder acquired it in the usual course of business and for a sufficient consideration, and the answer, which denies the material averments made by the appellants to the contrary, seems to us to be sufficient to impose the burden of proof upon them to show that the bills were indorsed after they were due and without consideration, and there being no evidence to repel the presumption in favor of the rights of the holder, the objection to the judgment in this respect cannot be sustained.

Nor can the objection that the record fails to show that the special judge was sworn according to law, avail the appellants, as they do not appear to have made it in the court below.

In regard to the fact that the bills were not stamped agreeably to the act of Congress on that subject, it has lately been decided by this court that while such omission might subject the parties to fines and penalties, under the act of Congress, it does not operate to render the instrument itself invalid according to the laws of this State.

Wherefore, perceiving no error in the judgment, the same is affirmed with damages.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5415-N-19]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
HUD's Fiscal Year 2010 Public and Indian Housing Family Self-
Sufficiency Program Under the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 
(ROSS) Program

AGENCY: Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
applicant information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and 
other requirements for HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Public and Indian 
Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program under the Resident Opportunity 
and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Program (PH-FSS). The PH-FSS NOFA makes 
available approximately $15 million under the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act 2010. The purpose of the PH-FSS program is to 
promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of 
assistance under the Public Housing program with public and private 
resources, enable participating families to increase earned income and 
financial literacy, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare 
assistance, and make progress toward achieving economic independence 
and housing self-sufficiency.
    The notice providing information regarding the application process, 
funding criteria and eligibility requirements can be found using the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development agency link on the 
Grants.gov/Find Web site at http://www.grants.gov/search/agency.do. A 
link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of Federal 
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for PH-FSS program is 14.877. 
Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding specific program 
requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in the 
program NOFA. Program staff will not be available to provide guidance 
on how to prepare the application. Questions regarding the 2010 General 
Section should be directed to the Office of Grants Management and 
Oversight at (202) 708-0667 or the NOFA Information Center at 800-HUD-
8929 (toll free). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access 
these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service 
at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
Barbara S. Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, 
Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27542 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15

The Board of Directors
CarrAmerica Realty Corporation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-22353, 333-53751, 333-50019, 333-18451,
333-04519, 333-80164, 333-89191, and 333-89193.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 1, 2001 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

                                                                     /s/KPMG LLP

Washington, D.C.
May 15, 2001
Exhibit 8.1
 List of Subsidiaries
 Ownership interestParticulars
    
    Country of incorporation
    
    
    2009(%)
    
    
    2008(%)
    
    
    2007(%)Significant subsidiariesSify Communication Limited
    
    India
    
    
    74
    
    
    
    74
    
    
    
    74Sify International Inc
    
    US
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100Sify Networks Private Limited
    
    India
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100
    
    
    
    100
No. 55.

#### James O. Hodges, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Myers, Suydam & Co. defendants.

[1.] The Act of 1845, organizing the Supreme Court, and which required the transcript of the record, to be made out and testified by the Clerk of the Superior Court, within ten days after the filing the notice of the signing of the bill of exceptions in the office, is virtually repealed by the Act of 1850, allowing until the first day of the next term of the Court.to which the case is made returnable, to send up the papers.

[2.] Sheriffs are not liable to be ruled, for monies collected by them out of their county.

Rule, from Macon Superior Court. Decision by Judge Powers.

The decision of the Court renders a statement of the facts, unnecessary.

Lamar & Lociirane, for plaintiff in error.

W. & II. C. Poe, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] A motion is made to dismiss the writ of error in this case, because the transcript of the record was not made out and transmitted by the Clerk of the Superior Court, within ten days from the time the original notice of the signing of the bill of exceptions, with the entries thereon, was filed in office.

In *Tompkins vs. Tigner,*at the late term of this Court at Columbus, wc held, that the Act of 184-5, organizing this-*293Court, was virtually repealed in this respect by the Act of 1850. By the 3d section of this latter Act, it is provided, that “when exceptions are filed in any case in the Superior Court, the Clerk of the Superior Court shall make out a copy of the bill of exceptions and send it up to the Supreme' Court, on or before the first day of the Court to which the writ of error is returnable, with the transcript of the record,” &c. *(Cobb’s Dig.*455.)

If the transcript need not be sent up to this Court until the session to which the writ of error is returnable, it would be useless as well as oppressive, to require it to be made out within ten days, under the old law, instead of allowing the Clerk until the ensuing term to perform the service. Such, we think, was the obvious intention of the law.'

[2.] In *Edward Kellogg & Co. vs. Green B. Mayo,*decided at Columbus, January Term last, (1855) p. 187, this Court held, that Sheriffs were not liable to be ruled for monies collected by them, out of the county for which they were Sheriffs. In other words, that the residence of the officer and not' the place where the process issued, fixed the jurisdiction. Any other practice -would involve manifold inconveniences, as well as absurdities. The Sheriff might be summoned to answer to rules in two counties, not only remote from each other, but also from his own, and the Court be sitting in all three at the same time. T forbear to discuss a question which has been already settled, and I-doubt not, upon sound principles.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Biography

Image Credit: NASA 

Jim Heidmann is the deputy director for the Advanced Air Vehicles Program (formerly 

Fundamental Aeronautics Program) under the NASA Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. Heidmann is responsible 

for the overall planning, management, and oversight of the directorate’s efforts to 

develop innovative concepts, technologies, and capabilities to enable revolutionary 

advances for a wide range of air vehicles. He supports the mission directorate and the 

ARMD associate administrator in a broad range of activities, including strategic and 

program planning, budget development, program review and evaluation, and external 

coordination and outreach.

The Advanced Air Vehicles Program focuses on achieving major leaps in the 

performance of subsonic fixed and vertical lift aircraft to meet challenging and growing 

long-term civil aviation needs; on pioneering low-boom supersonic flight to achieve 

new levels of global mobility; and on sustaining hypersonic competency for national 

needs while advancing fundamental hypersonics research.

Heidmann most recently served as Manager of NASA’s Advanced Air Transport 

Technology Project. In this capacity, he led NASA’s technology development for 

subsonic transport aircraft. Prior to this role, he served as Acting Deputy Director of 

NASA’s Advanced Air Vehicles Program, managed NASA’s Transformational Tools 

& Technologies project, and also served as Chief of the Turbomachinery and Heat 

Transfer Branch. 

In addition to these management roles, Jim spent 20 years as an Aerospace 

Research Engineer, publishing more than 20 papers and journal articles in the area 

of turbomachinery aerodynamics and heat transfer. He was elected Fellow of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 2007, Associate Fellow of the American 

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2015 and received the Outstanding 

Mechanical Engineer award from Purdue University School of Mechanical Engineering 

in 2017. Jim received a bachelor’s of science degree in mechanical engineering from the 

University of Toledo in 1986, a master’s of science degree in mechanical engineering 

from Purdue University in 1988, and a doctorate in mechanical and aerospace 

engineering from Case Western Reserve University in 1997.

Dr. James (Jim) Heidmann

Deputy Director for the Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP)

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, C. Stephen Cordial, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Somera Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of Somera Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Somera Communications, Inc.



By:

/s/ C. STEPHEN CORDIALName: C. Stephen CordialTitle: Acting President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)Date: February 27, 2004
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

I, Steve Valenzuela, Chief Financial Officer of Rainmaker Systems, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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/    STEVE
VALENZUELASteve ValenzuelaSenior Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer
and Corporate Secretary (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)


Date: March 4, 2011
No. D-703.

#### In re Disbarment of Gussow.

It is ordered that Irving B. Gussow, of Fern Park, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### In the Matter of Lashawn Shanteal R. and Others, Infants. Lisa Ann W., Appellant; Angel Guardian Children and Family Services, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 20]

Orders, Family Court, New York County (Sara E Schechter, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2002, which terminated respondent-appellant mother’s parental rights to the three subject children and committed their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, upon a finding of fact that the mother suffered from mental illness, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the mother’s contentions, there was uncontroverted clear and convincing medical evidence *(see Matter of Joyce T.,*65 NY2d 39, 45-46 [1985]; *Matter of Robert XX.,*290 AD2d 753, 754 [2002]) to support the conclusion that she is, by reason of mental illness, presently and for the foreseeable future unable to provide proper and adequate care for her daughters *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [a]).

After interviewing the mother and reviewing her hospital records and the report of a prior court-appointed psychiatrist, the presently appointed psychiatrist testified that the mother suffers from, inter alia, depressive and personality disorders not otherwise specified, with antisocial and borderline features. The psychiatrist further opined that these disorders created a risk of aggressive outbursts, thus negatively impacting on the mother’s parental functions by impeding her ability to develop interpersonal relationships, specifically with regard to raising her children in a stable manner. She also noted the mother’s noncompliance with treatment, and opined that the children, if returned to their mother, would be at risk of being neglected for the present and foreseeable future *(see Matter of Erica D.,*294 AD2d 435, 436 [2002]).

None of the arguments concerning the qualifications of the medical expert or the receipt of the medical reports into evidence was preserved for appellate review since no objections were made at the hearing. Further, the expert was properly qualified.

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
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

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Jerry Balter, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Telzuit Medical Technologies, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:



|3. | Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jerry BalterJerry BalterChief Financial OfficerNovember 1, 2006
# Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATON OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

# Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics,
Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, the (Report), I,
Deborah F. Ricci, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 1350, 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.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Deborah F. RicciDeborah F. RicciChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)

August 15, 2005

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will
be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Petro Stopping Centers Holdings, L.P. (the Company), that to his knowledge:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
SEC) on the date hereof (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.

This written statement is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.               
|                     |  | (J.A. Cardwell, Sr.)                 
|                     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
|                     | 
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | /s/ Edward Escudero                  
|                     |  | (Edward Escudero)                    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary