alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ALFRED ARNOLD AMELINE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 02-30326

D.C. No. CR-02-00011-SEH

District of Montana, Great Falls

ORDER

Before: WARDLAW, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Alfred Ameline’s Petition for Rehearing is granted. The opinion

filed on July 21, 2004, United States v. Ameline, 376 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2004), is

withdrawn. A new opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. 

FILED

FEB 09 2005

CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Covington, Appellant.

Submitted June 22, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                             545
<SECURITIES>                                       483
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1120
<ALLOWANCES>                                       139
<INVENTORY>                                        906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3429
<PP&E>                                            4733
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    7605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3149
<BONDS>                                           1974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                         316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      7605
<SALES>                                           1774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1774
<CGS>                                             1187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (282)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (282)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
* 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 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50914

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRES LORETO GUTIERREZ-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-993-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Andres Loreto

Gutierrez-Martinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Shelter Island Association et al., Appellants, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Shelter Island et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 9, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed so much of Supreme Court’s order and judgment as denied appellants’ motion to amend the petition, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2333 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2333

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Agency 
  for International Development, Office of the Inspector General for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Agency 
  for International Development, Office of the Inspector General for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. AGENCY FOR 
              INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 
              GENERAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Agency for 
International Development, Office of the Inspector General for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $76,600,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael L. MOORE, a/k/a Gadget, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-7104.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

*532Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Moore appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Moore’s motion for reduction of sentence for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Moore,*No. 1:97-cr-00362-JCC (E.D. Va. June 1, 2006). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Moore’s motion for reconsideration, and we affirm that order as well. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### In the Matter of Virginia Parkhouse, Appellant, v Scott M. Stringer, as Borough President of Manhattan, et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion by New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                October 29, 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
Exhibit     Description
-------     -----------
<S>         <C>
99.1        Press Release, dated October 28, 2004, regarding Hollinger Inc.'s
            announcement of proposed share consolidation and privatization.

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  October 29, 2004

                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By /s/ Peter G. White
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Peter G. White
                                           Title: Co-Chief Operating Officer
                                                  and Secretary
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief
executive officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



1) the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 27, 2003 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 Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 27, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    MARK A. HOFFMANMark A. Hoffman Chief Executive Officer and
Director (Principal Executive Officer)




Date: March 12, 2004



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CEO 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 of Targa Resources, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Rene R.
Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer, 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 his knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
February 26, 2009




By:
            
            /s/    RENE R. JOYCEName:
            
            Rene
      R. JoyceTitle:
            
            Chief
      Executive Officer and Director of Targa
              Resources,
      Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3712 

To redesignate the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in 

the State of Ohio as the ‘‘Dayton Wright Brothers-Dunbar National 

Historical Park’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2006 

Mr. DEWINE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in the State of Ohio as the ‘‘Dayton Wright 

Brothers-Dunbar National Historical Park’’, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dayton Wright Broth5 ers-Dunbar National Historical Park Designation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DAYTON WRIGHT BROTHERS-DUNBAR NATIONAL 

7 HISTORICAL PARK. 

8 (a) REDESIGNATION.— 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3712 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 101(a) of the Day2 ton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 (16 

3 U.S.C. 410ww(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘Dayton 

4 Aviation Heritage’’ and inserting ‘‘Dayton Wright 

5 Brothers-Dunbar’’. 

6 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Dayton 

7 Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 is 

8 amended— 

9 (A) in section 1 (16 U.S.C. 410ww note; 

10 Public Law 102–419), by striking ‘‘Dayton 

11 Aviation Heritage’’ and inserting ‘‘Dayton 

12 Wright Brothers-Dunbar’’; 

13 (B) in the heading for title I (16 U.S.C. 

14 prec. 410ww), by striking ‘‘DAYTON AVIA15 TION HERITAGE’’ and inserting ‘‘DAY16 TON WRIGHT BROTHERS-DUNBAR’’; 

17 and 

18 (C) in the heading for section 101 (16 

19 U.S.C. 410ww), by striking ‘‘DAYTON AVIA20 TION HERITAGE’’ and inserting ‘‘DAYTON

21 WRIGHT BROTHERS-DUNBAR’’. 

22 (3) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, 

23 map, regulation, document, record, or other official 

24 paper of the United States to the ‘‘Dayton Aviation 

25 Heritage National Historical Park’’ shall be considVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:30 Jul 22, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3712.IS S3712

HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•S 3712 IS

1 ered to be a reference to the ‘‘Dayton Wright Broth2 ers-Dunbar National Historical Park’’. 

3 (b) GRANTS.—Section 108 of the Dayton Aviation 

4 Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 410ww–7) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) by redesginating subsection (b) as sub7 section (c); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(b) GRANTS.—Subject to the availability of appro11 priations, the Secretary may provide to public and private 

12 organizations grants for the preservation, development, 

13 use, and interpretation of properties within the boundaries 

14 of the park.’’. 

Æ 


HMOORE on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### State v. Lane

Case below: Wayne County Superior Court

No. 606A05

Def’s Motion to Drop Appeal (Wayne County)

Dismissed 01/25/07
* The Honorable Daniel Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2705

___________ State of North Dakota, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of North Dakota. * Michael H. Nowik, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 21, 2003 Filed: November 25, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael H. Nowik appeals the district court's * order denying Nowik's motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and for default judgment, both filed after the district court dismissed his purported removal of a state court criminal action. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying either the Rule 60(b) motion, see Swope v. Siegel-Robert, Inc. , 243 F.3d 486, 498 (8th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) motion must demonstrate exceptional circumstances for-2- relief; reviewed for abuse of discretion), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 887 (2001), or the motion for default judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### Simpson Gray, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

*803Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division order as affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of the motion to amend the answer, dismissed upon the ground that such part of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Best v Yutaka,*90 NY2d 833, 834 n [1997]; *Muro v Bay Ready Mix &*Supplies, 97 NY2d 625 [2001]); motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
664 A.2d 937

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT B. CLARK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 5, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on July 31,1995, recommending that ROBERT B. CLARK of EAST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1979, be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect) and *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROBERT B. CLARK is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Exhibit 31.1**Certifications**I, J. Collier Sparks, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MDI, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: May 15, 2006         By /s/ J. Collier Sparks J. Collier Sparks      Chief Executive Officer  
14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,043,958
<SECURITIES>                                   100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  555,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,134,731
<PP&E>                                       1,653,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                 624,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,687,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,483,802
<BONDS>                                      9,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,754
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,299,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,687,819
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,148,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,151,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             195,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                944,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                   425,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   519,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>