alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50927

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MANUEL PACHECO, also known as Manuel

Octavio Pacheco-Alvarez; RMI SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CR-171-1

USDC No. SA-95-CR-171-4

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of their

motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against them on the

ground that it violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy, and

Excessive Fines Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Appellants

argue that the simultaneous prosecution of civil forfeiture
No. 95-50927

- 2 -

proceedings and this criminal prosecution violates the Due

Process Clause in that the proceedings are designed to exhaust

appellants’ resources. We decline to review appellants’ due

process claim for lack of jurisdiction in this interlocutory

appeal. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662 (1977);

United States v. Arreola-Ramos, 60 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Appellants also argue that the simultaneous civil forfeiture

and criminal proceedings violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The

record indicates that the civil forfeiture proceedings have been

consolidated and stayed pending the resolution of the criminal

proceedings against appellants. Because there has been no final

adjudication of civil liability in the civil forfeiture

proceedings, jeopardy has not attached and the instant criminal

prosecution does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. See

United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1344 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
(November 21, 2013)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Galeano, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 652]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered May 26, 2011, as amended June 16, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court should have instructed the jury on the affirmative defense to felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The record does not establish that the court “expressly decided” the issue “in re[s]ponse to a protest by a party” (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; *People v Colon,*46 AD3d 260, 263 [1st Dept 2007]). Instead, the record merely reflects that defense counsel was initially noncommittal about whether he wanted this charge, and that subsequently there was an informal, unrecorded col*538loquy at which the court expressed its opinion that the affirmative defense was inapplicable. Defendant did nothing to register any disagreement with that view.

As an alternate holding, we find that there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, to support that defense (see *People v Curet,*99 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1010 [2013]). Defendant’s defense was that he did not commit felony murder, to begin with, in that he only intended to commit a nonforcible larceny. There was no evidence in either the prosecution or defense case to support the elements of the affirmative defense.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

                        Whole Living, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officers of Whole Living, Inc. certify pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

..     the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..     the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                    /s/ Ronald K. Williams
Date: September 19, 2006            ____________________________________
                                    Ronald K. Williams
                                    Chief Executive Officer



                                    /s/ Robert Reitz
Date: September 19, 2006            _____________________________________
                                    Robert Reitz
                                    Chief Financial Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  September-30-1996
<CASH>                        417,584
<SECURITIES>                  000
<RECEIVABLES>                 47,281
<ALLOWANCES>                  000
<INVENTORY>                   000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              000
<PP&E>                        24,779,358
<DEPRECIATION>                (10,253,380)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                16,036,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         217,466
<BONDS>                       4,039,557
<COMMON>                      000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         000
<PREFERRED>                   000
<OTHER-SE>                    11,326,096
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  16,036,162
<SALES>                       2,552,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,897,998
<CGS>                         000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,280,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1,075,914
<LOSS-PROVISION>              000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            320,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>               224,111
<INCOME-TAX>                  000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           224,111
<DISCONTINUED>                000
<EXTRAORDINARY>               000
<CHANGES>                     000
<NET-INCOME>                  224,111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 3.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                 3.95
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

October 7, 2016

153116

153118

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 153116

COA: 321946

MPSC: U-017077

UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY,

Respondent-Appellant,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 153118

COA: 321946

MPSC: U-017077

UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY,

Respondent-Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 22, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 
I, Larry S. Royster, 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 7, 2016

p1004

2

Clerk

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the analysis provided 

in Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 613 (1942), was relevant to the 

determination whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) exceeded its 

statutory authority by enforcing a settlement agreement that included a revenue 

decoupling mechanism for an electric utility; (2) if Dodge applies, whether the petitioner 

was barred from arguing that the settlement agreement is unenforceable or void; and (3) 

whether the petitioner is procedurally barred from challenging the MPSC’s prior orders 

when it failed to intervene in the cases or appeal from the orders. The parties may 

address other issues but should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
Exhibit 10.1


 


NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC.


5300 Chiron Way


Emeryville, California 94608







June 19, 2015


 


James R. Neal


Vice President, Business Development


XOMA Corporation


2910 Seventh Street


Berkeley, California 94710


 



	
Re:

	
Secured Note Agreement – Extension of Maturity Date







 


Dear Jim:


 


As you know, XOMA (US) LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“XOMA”), and Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. (f/k/a Chiron Corporation), a Delaware corporation (together with its affiliates, “NVDI”), are parties to a certain Secured Note Agreement, dated May 26, 2005 (as amended) (the “Note”) and an Amended and Restated Research, Development and Commercialization Agreement, dated July 1, 2008 (the “Amended Agreement”).


 


Currently, NVDI and XOMA are engaged in discussions concerning a possible restructuring of the debt represented by the Note, and the obligations under the Amended Agreement.  These discussions include, among other things, consideration of an amendment to the maturity date of the Note, currently fixed at June 21, 2015.


 


In light of the parties’ discussions and the shared interests the parties have in negotiating a mutually agreeable restructuring of the Note and the Amended Agreement, NVDI agrees to, and hereby does, extend the maturity date of the Note to September 30, 2015.


 


Please confirm that the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding by acknowledging your agreement in the space provided below.


 


	 	
Very truly yours,


	 	 
	 	
NOVARTIS VACCINES AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC.


	 	 
	 	
By:

	
/s/ Maria A. Rocco-Ichikawa


	 	
Name:

	
Maria A. Rocco-Ichikawa


	 	
Title:

	
Director Finance NIBR










XOMA (US) LLC


 


/s/ James R. Neal


James R. Neal


Vice President, Business Development
---




EXHIBIT 32
 
 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, each of the undersigned Lawrence A. Siebert, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Larkin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds’ knowledge and belief:
 
 (1) This Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 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 this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. for the periods presented therein.
 
 
 
 Dated:  March 3, 2011                          /s/ Lawrence A. Siebert
 Lawrence A. Siebert
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Dated:  March 3, 2011                          /s/ Richard J. Larkin
 Richard J. Larkin
 Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 23 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To rescind certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family and Small Business Taxpayer 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN BALANCES MADE AVAILABLE TO THE INTERNAL 
              REVENUE SERVICE.

    The unobligated balances of amounts appropriated or otherwise made 
available for activities of the Internal Revenue Service by paragraphs 
(1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 
10301 of Public Law 117-169 (commonly known as the ``Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022'') as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
are rescinded.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To rescind certain balances made available to the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.
```
M. R., MOTHER OF D. R. AND 

D. R.,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1325

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 5, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gilchrist County.

Monica J. Brasington, Judge.

Lindsey Lander, Trenton, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, Department of Children and Families, 

Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit 3.4**

 

**SECOND CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION**

**FILED TO CORRECT A CERTAIN ERROR IN**

**THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**EMERGE INTERACTIVE, INC.**

**FILED IN THE OFFICE OF**

**THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE**

**ON OCTOBER 26, 1999**

 

****eMerge Interactive, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify that: 

 

**FIRST:**A Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation wasfiled with the Secretary of State of Delaware on October 26, 1999 and that such Certificate requires correction as permitted by Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware. 

 

**SECOND**: The inaccuracy or defect of such Certification to be corrected is the par value of the Common Stock of theCompany, referenced in clause (A) of Section 4, which was inadvertently misstated. 

 

**THIRD**: Section 4 (A) is hereby corrected to read as follows: 

 

100,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.0008 per share, consisting of 92,711,110 shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.008 per share(herein called the “Class A Common Stock”) and 7,288,890 shares of Class B Common Stock, par value $0.008 per share (herein called the “Class B Common Stock”). Each holder of Class A Common Stock shall be entitled to vote on allmatters submitted to a vote of the stockholders of the Corporation (including election of directors other than the Series A Directors and the Series D Directors, each as hereinafter defined) and shall be entitled to one vote per share and eachholder of Class B Common Stock shall be entitled to vote on all matters submitted to a vote of the stockholders of the Corporation (including election of directors other than the Series A Directors and the Series D Directors) and shall be entitledto two and one-half votes per share. Each share of Class B Common Stock shall be converted automatically into one fully paid, non-assessable share of Class A Common Stock immediately prior to the earlier of (i) the transfer by the registered holderof such share of Class B Common Stock to another registered holder other than an affiliate of such holder and (ii) the filing of a registration statement with the U.S. Securites and Exchange Commission covering the share or shares of Class A CommonStock that are issuable upon the conversion of such share of Class B Common Stock. Immediately upon the effectiveness of this amendment and restatement of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, each share of Common Stock issued andoutstanding immediately prior thereto (“Old Common Stock”) shall, *ipso facto*and without any action on the part of the holder of shares of the Old Common Stock, be changed, converted and reclassified into one share of Class A CommonStock 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** the undersigned has causedthis Certificate of Correction to be executed this 21st day of January, 2000.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: THE MATTER OF TAIRA )

LYNN LIMITED NO. 7, etc., et al., )

PRAYING FOR EXONERATION ) CIVIL ACTION 13-0318-WS-C

FROM OR LIMITATION OF )

LIABILITY ) 

ORDER

Counsel for claimant Andre Files has filed a suggestion of Files’ death. 

(Doc. 724). The suggestion is noted, with the reminder that, “[i]f [a] motion [to 

substitute] is not made within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death, 

the action by or against the decedent must be dismissed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1).

Counsel “[m]oves and asks the court to abate this Matter as to the claims of 

Andre Files until a proper representative is appointed.” Because no showing of 

the factual necessity or legal propriety of such a stay has been offered, the motion 

is denied.

1

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2016.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 Counsel assures the Court that a motion to substitute “will be filed as soon as an 

estate representative is appointed,” so the Court can perceive no reason counsel cannot 

continue to prosecute this action in the brief interim.

Case 1:13-cv-00318-WS-C Document 790 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 02-60077

_____________ PATRICK S ELLIOTT; DONNA J ELLIOTT Petitioners - Appellants v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent - Appellee

______________ No. 02-60078

_____________ LARRY ELLIOTT; JULIE F ELLIOTT Petitioners - Appellants v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondent - Appellee

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the Decision of the United States Tax Court (19425-98 & 19433-98)

_________________________________________________________________ November 7, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R.

47.5.4. 2 The notices of deficiency were not so inadequate as to deprive the Tax Court of jurisdiction, and they were sufficient to inform the Elliotts that their claimed business expense deductions had not been allowed. That said, the Internal Revenue Service clearly could have done considerably better and thereby saved all involved, including the Tax Court and this court, from this wasteful exercise. AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

      ( print page 75555)    
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than January 2, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

                    1.                     *Gregory Jackson,*                     Detroit, Michigan, individually, and together as a group acting in concert with Roy S. Roberts, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan; to acquire voting shares of First Independence Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Independence Bank, both in Detroit, Michigan.                

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

                    1.                     *Michael K. Pearson and Keith W. Pearson,*                     both of Hobbs, New Mexico; collectively as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Lea County Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Lea County State Bank, both in Hobbs, New Mexico.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 15, 2014.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-29644 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P