alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30671

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LINDA FAYE HAWKINS SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-30044-2

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Linda Faye Hawkins Smith appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court after she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine base. 

She argues that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), the district court erred in holding her responsible for a

larger amount of cocaine base for relevant conduct purposes than

the amount alleged in the indictment and found by the jury in her

first trial. She acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed
No. 03-30671

-2-

by United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000), but

she states that she is raising it to preserve it for possible

Supreme Court review. Apprendi does not invalidate a sentencing

court’s factual findings concerning drug quantity for the

purposes of determining the applicable Sentencing Guidelines in

cases where those findings cause a defendant’s guideline range to

shift within the statutory range. Doggett, 230 F.3d at 266;

United States v. Randle, 304 F.3d 373, 378 (5th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 123 S. Ct. 1748 (2003).

Smith also argues that under the Double Jeopardy Clause, she

cannot be held responsible for a drug quantity greater than the

amount found by the jury in the first trial. Double jeopardy did 

not bar retrial in this case because Smith’s first conviction was

reversed due to a due process violation, and not due to

insufficient evidence. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1,

15-17 (1978); Shute v. State of Texas, 117 F.3d 233, 238 (5th

Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12.1

Polypore International, Inc.  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                    |                                                                                             | Successor |    | Predecessor
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | -- | -----------
|
|
|Earnings:           |                                                                                             |           |    |            
|                    | Pretax income (loss) before extraordinary items and cumulative effect of accounting changes |           | $  | (52,887    
|                    | Fixed charges                                                                               |           |    | 92,906     
|                    |                                                                                             |          
|                    | Earnings as adjusted                                                                        |           |    | 40,019     
|Fixed charges:      |                                                                                             |           |    |            
|                    | Interest expense, net                                                                       |           |    | 92,287     
|                    | Interest portion of rental expense                                                          |           |    | 619        
|                    |                                                                                             |          
|                    | Fixed charges                                                                               |           |    | 92,906     
|Fixed charges ratio |                                                                                             |           | (1 | )          
|                    |                                                                                             |          

---

For
purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of earnings before income taxes plus fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of interest expense, amortization of debt
issuance costs and the portion of rental expense that management believes is representative of the interest component of rental expense.

---



QuickLinks
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

D ecember 30, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00768

- CV

Jana Lee FLANAGAN and Lucas Matthew Flanagan

,

Appellant s

v.

RBD SAN ANTONIO L.P. , Davidson Hotel Company, LLC

and G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.,

Appellee s

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, T exas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 18601 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On December 28, 2016 , t he trial court clerk notified this Court that the clerk ’ s record was not filed because appellant s ha ve failed to pay

, or make arrangements to pay

, the clerk ’ s fee for preparing the record

. A ppellant s are not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant s provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk ’ s fee has been paid or arrangements

hav e been made to pay the clerk ’ s fee; or (2) appellant s are entitled to appeal without paying the

clerk = s fee. If appellant s fail to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement: Grand Forks County, North Dakota 
and Polk County, Minnesota

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), North Dakota Department 
of Transportation (NDDOT), DOT.

ACTION: Rescind Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this revised notice to advise the public 
that FHWA and NDDOT will not prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) for a proposed highway project in Grand Forks County, North 
Dakota and Polk County, Minnesota. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 
was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri G. Lares, Environmental Program 
Manager and Planning Specialist, Federal Highway Administration, North 
Dakota Division Office, 4503 Coleman Street, Suite 205, Bismarck, North 
Dakota 58503, Telephone: (701) 221-9464. Terry Udland, Bridge Division, 
North Dakota Department of Transportation, 608 E. Boulevard Avenue, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0700, Telephone: (701) 328-1969.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the North 
Dakota and Minnesota Departments of Transportation, had proposed to 
prepare an EIS on a proposal to rehabilitate or replace the historic 
Sorlie Bridge over the Red River between Grand Forks, ND and East Grand 
Forks, MN. After further analysis of the bridge condition, it was 
determined that rehabilitation alternatives and replacement 
alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS for the structure were not 
warranted. Preliminary alternatives that will be analyzed through a 
Categorical Exclusion include various degrees of maintenance of the 
existing bridge.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. The regulations 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this 
program.)

    Issued on: November 6, 2014.
Wendall L. Meyer,
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, North Dakota 
Division Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-27104 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
```
#### SUPERIOR TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents. DEATON, INC., Petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Respondents.

Nos. 79-3257, 79-3700

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 1980.

Robert E. Born, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners in No. 79-3257.

Barry Grossman, Marion L. Jetton, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., H. Glenn Scammel, ICC, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for respondents in No. 79-3257.

Harry McCall, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Jones Motor Co., Inc.

Kim D. Mann, Washington, D. C., for petitioner in No. 79-3700.

Robert Lewis Thompson, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., James P. Tuite, H. Glenn Scammel, ICC, Washington, D. C., for respondents in No. 79-3700.

Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for intervenor.

Before GODBOLD, REAVLEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5th Cir. R. 18.

PER CURIAM:

This case appears before us as a consolidation of two petitions for review of a grant of an emergency temporary authority (ETA) to Jones Motor Co. by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The ETA was granted without notice and an opportunity for input by existing carriers in accordance with the ICC’s *Notice of Elimination of Notification Procedure in the Processing of Emergency Temporary Authority Applications under 49 U.S.C. § 10928,*43 Fed.Reg. 58,701 (1978). For the reasons set forth in *Alamo Express, Inc. v. United States,*613 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1980), the ICC order granting the ETA is

VACATED.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3917 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3917

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, as the ``Maxine S. 
                  Postal United States Post Office''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3917

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, as the ``Maxine S. 
                  Postal United States Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 695 
Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Maxine S. Postal United 
States Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 29, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 American Standard Companies Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederic M. Poses, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Frederic M. Poses  
|Frederic M. Poses      
|Chief Executive Officer

October 24, 2006
Amendment No. 1 to the 2005 Supplemental Stock Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.89 
  
 HIBERNIA CORPORATION 
 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
  
 Whereas, Hibernia Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the
2005 Supplemental Stock Compensation Plan, which plan is intended to be an unfunded plan of deferred compensation that provides benefits to a select group of management and highly compensated employees of the Company and its affiliates and complies
with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, first effective as of January 1, 2005 (the “Plan”); 
  
 Whereas, the Company has entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of March 6, 2005, by and between the Company and
Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One”), pursuant to which the Company has agreed to merge with and into Capital One (the “Merger”); 
  
 Whereas, the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company possesses the authority to
amend the Plan to facilitate its administration and such committee has determined that the adoption of the amendment set forth herein is consistent with such authority; 
  
 Now, Therefore, the Plan shall be amended as follows, to be effective as of the dates set forth below: 
  
 1. 
 Payment Procedures 
  
 Effective as of January 1, 2005, Section 2.13 of the Plan shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  

“2.13 Payment Date means the first business day that is at least 60 days after each June 30th or December 31st or as soon as
practicable thereafter, subject to any limitation imposed under Section 5.6 hereof.” 
  
 Effective as of January 1, 2005, Section 2.22 of the Plan shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  

“2.22 Valuation Date means each June 30th and December 31st and such other dates as may be designated, from time to time by the
Committee or its designee; the term Annual Valuation Date means each December 31st.” 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 was executed this 24th day of August, 2005, to be effective as of the dates set forth above. 
  

			
	HIBERNIA CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ J. Herbert Boydstun


	 	 	J. Herbert Boydstun
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Prinzo & Associates, LLC

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03256

Honorable Gary Feinerman

BMO Harris Bank, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, July 23, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gary Feinerman:Attorneys/Parties should

appear for the 8/3/2020 status hearing by calling the Toll−Free Number: (877) 336−1828,

Access Code: 4082461. Members of the public and media will be able to call in to listen

to this hearing (use toll free number). Please, please be sure to keep your phone on mute

when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of

the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court

proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of

court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future

hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice.(jlj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 21 Filed: 07/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:64
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**RULE 15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Jack E. Knott, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pliant Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 financialstatements, 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 certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned 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 report is beingprepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe 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; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial 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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  August 12, 2003
1

IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

LARRY JONES,

Defendants

) )

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 No. 20 CR 309

Judge Kendall

 Magistrate Valdez

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS

Defendant, Larry Jones (“Defendant”), by and through attorney, James D. Tunick (hereafter 

“Counsel”) respectfully moves this Honorable Court to enter an order granting Defendant a 

substitution of attorneys, granting Counsel leave to file his appearance instanter and permitting the 

withdrawal of CJA Panel attorney, Robert Loeb, who was previously appointed to represent 

Defendant. In support of this motion, Counsel states as follows.

1. Attorney Robert Loeb was previously appointed to represent Defendant and represented 

Defendant at his initial appearance and in preparation for his detention hearing

2. Counsel was contacted by Defendant’s family over the weekend of June 26-27, 2020, and 

in the late afternoon of June 29, 2020 was retained to represent Defendant.

3. As such, Counsel is seeking leave to file his appearance instanter and to substitute in for 

Defendant’s previous attorney.
2

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Larry Jones, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court 

enter an order granting James D, Tunick leave to file his appearance in this matter instanter and 

granting attorney Robert Loeb leave to withdraw in this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s James D. Tunick_ 

James D. Tunick

Law Offices of James D. Tunick

James D. Tunick

30 N. La Salle St.

Suite 2140

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel. (312)759-7626

Fax (312)580-1839
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Mechanical Technology, Incorporated**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mechanical Technology, Incorporated (the “Company”) for the twelve month periods ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cynthia A. Scheuer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), that, to my knowledge:

 

| (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”); and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.           |
|   |                                                                                                                                                 |

 

 

 

|           |   |   |                    |
|----------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
| March 27, 2008 |   |   | /s/ Cynthia A. Scheuer  |
|           |   |   | Cynthia A. Scheuer      |
|           |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |