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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20297

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN MICHAEL STEARNS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-677-ALL

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Michael Stearns appeals his guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Stearns

contends that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its

face because it does not require that there be a “substantial”

effect on interstate commerce. He contends that if a substantial

effect on interstate commerce is required for a 18 U.S.C.
No. 02-20297

-2-

§ 922(g)(1) conviction, his indictment was deficient because it

did not allege the “substantial” effect on interstate commerce

necessary to render the statute constitutional. Stearns also

argues that the factual basis for his guilty plea, which showed

his intrastate possession of a firearm manufactured outside the

state, was insufficient to establish the nexus with interstate

commerce required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Stearns acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

existing Fifth Circuit precedent. See United States v.

Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534

U.S. 1150 (2002); United States v. Gresham, 118 F.3d 258, 264-65

(5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Kuban, 94 F.3d 971, 973 (5th

Cir. 1996); United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-43 (5th Cir.

1996). Stearns raises the issues solely to preserve them for

possible Supreme Court review.

Stearns also contends, in light of the reasoning set forth

in Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000), that 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) can no longer constitutionally be construed to cover

the intrastate possession of a handgun merely due to the fact

that it traveled across state lines at some point in the past. 

Stearns argues that such a construction would be applicable to

99% of all firearms in existence. His argument is foreclosed by

this court’s holding in Daugherty, 264 F.3d at 518. Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 02-20297

-3-

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee's brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee's brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hong Zhao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Dated:  April 16, 2010
/s/ Hong ZhaoBy:  Hong ZhaoIts:  Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 248 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. REGINA LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant,
ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 1, 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal
.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 25 2022

07/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0248
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.                          ( print page 2951)    

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Defibrillating Device for MRI Procedures.                    

*Date:*                         February 11, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Giuseppe Pintucci, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7192, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0287,                         *Pintuccig@nhlbi.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

                        Dated: January 14, 2015                        *.*

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00820 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7008

ANDREW DAVID OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM HUNT; FRANKLIN FREEMAN; MARY LOU ROGERS;MACK JARVIS; DANIEL L. STIENEKE; HATTIE PIMPONG; PAMELA MARTIN; LIEUTENANT ROSS; NURSE CURRIE; NURSE KINLAW; ROOSEVELT STRICKLAND; JAMES BROWN; JACK HOLTZMAN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-40-5-CT-B0) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew David Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Andrew D. Owens appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint as frivolous because Owens failed to present his claims in a short and plain manner as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. He also appealsthe district court’s orders denying two motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. We note, however, that the district court did not afford Owens the opportunity to amend his complaint prior to dismissal. We therefore affirm thedistrict court’s dismissal, with the modification that it be without prejudice to Owens’ ability to refile his complaint in compliance with Rule 8. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). We dispense withoral 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 AS MODIFIED
##### 



(BROOKFIELD LOGO) BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION (incorporated under the laws of Canada) NOTICE OF ANNUAL AND SPECIAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an Annual and Special Meeting of Shareholders of Brookfield Properties
Corporation(Brookfield) will be held on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 in New York City at 300
Madison Avenue at 11:30 a.m. (e.s.t.) for the following purposes:  1.

to receive the annual report to shareholders, including the consolidated financial statements
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, together with the report of the auditors thereon;  2.

to consider and, if thought advisable, to pass the special resolution, with or without
amendment, in the form of Schedule A attached to the accompanying management proxy
circular (the Circular), authorizing an amendment to our articles of incorporation (the
Articles) to fix the number of directors at 13;3.

to elect directors for the ensuing year;  4.

to consider and, if thought advisable, to pass the resolution, with or without amendment, in
the form of Schedule B attached to the Circular, confirming our new By-laws (the full
text of which is reproduced as Appendix I to Schedule B);  5.

to appoint auditors and to authorize the directors to fix the remuneration to be paid to the
auditors; and  6.

to transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment
thereof. The attached Circular provides additional information relating to the matters to be dealt with at
the meeting and is incorporated into and forms part of this notice. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please exercise your right to vote by signing and
returning the enclosed form of proxy in the envelope provided for that purpose to CIBC Mellon Trust
Company, P.O. Box 12005, Station BRM B, Toronto, Ontario M7Y 2K5 (courier address Attention: Proxy
Department, 200 Queens Quay East, Unit 6, Toronto, Ontario M5A 4K9, or if delivered by facsimile
at 416-368-2502), so as to arrive not later than the close of business on Monday, April 25, 2005
or, if the meeting is adjourned, 48 hours (excluding Saturdays and holidays) before any adjournment
of the meeting. By Order of the Board of Directors  Toronto, Canada
March 15, 2005
    
    Kathleen G. Kane
Senior Vice President and
General Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 33.1.3.2

 

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH**

**§1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)**

**of REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

**FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD**

**JANUARY 1, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007**

 

American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly “Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.”) (collectively, the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi), §1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations, (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) which the Asserting Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “PlatformTransactions”). The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

 

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform Transactions necessary to determine compliance with §1122(d)(4)(xii).

 

The Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Reporting Period. 

 

**American Security Insurance Company**

**Standard Guaranty Insurance Company**

**TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc.**

|   | (formerly, “Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.”) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | /s/ John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | By: John Frobose |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Senior Vice President |
|--------|-----------------------|

 

 

|   | Date: February 19, 2008 |
|--------|-------------------------|
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11237

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE BOCANEGRA-GUTIERREZ, also known as

Jose Gilberto Bocanegra-Gutierrez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CR-197-ALL-P

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Bocanegra-Gutierrez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Bocanegra-Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-11237

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Bocanegra-Gutierrez maintains

that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the maximum sentence which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Bocanegra-Gutierrez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
The use of cameras or recording equipment during the

performance is not allowed. Please be sure that cell phones,

pagers, and other electronic devices are turned off.

Music Department

National Gallery ofArt 

Sixth Street and Constitution Avenue nw

Washington, DC

www.ngfl.gov

Concerts are made possible in part through the generosity of donors

to the National Gallery ofArt through The Circle. Reserved seating is

available in recognition oftheir support. Please contact the development

office at (202) 842-6450 or circle@nga.gov for more information.

COVER: John Toole, Skating Scene (detail), c. 1835, National Gallery ofArt,

Washington, Gift of Edgar William and Bernice Chrysler Garbisch

The Seventy-Third Season of

The William Nelson Cromwell and F. Lammot Belin

Concerts

National Gallery ofArt 

3,026th Concert

Empire Brass

Rolf Smedvig and Derek Lockhart, trumpets

Victor Sungarian, French horn

Greg Spiridopoulos, trombone

Kenneth Amis, tuba

December 6, 2014

Saturday, 3:30 pm

West Building, West Garden Court
The program will be announcedfrom the stage.

The Musicians

The Empire Brass enjoys an international reputation as North America’s

finest brass quintet, renowned for its brilliant virtuosity and the unparalleled diversity ofits repertoire. The five musicians—all ofwhom

have held leading positions with major American orchestras—perform

over one hundred concerts a year. With their best-selling recordings

on the Telarc label, they have introduced an international audience to the

excitement of brass music that ranges from Bach and Handel to jazz

and Broadway. The Empire Brass is the first brass ensemble to win the

prestigious Naumberg Chamber Music Award.

In addition to playing across the United States, the Empire Brass

has toured the Far East thirteen times, and performs regularly in Europe.

It has played in the former Soviet Union, where its concerts were broadcast on television. The ensemble has performed with major symphony

orchestras such as the Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Toronto 

symphonies, the Philadelphia Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, and

Zurich’s Tonhalle Orchester. It regularly visits leading summer festivals

including Ravinia, Tanglewood, Caramoor, Saratoga, and Chautauqua.

On network television, the Empire Brass has been featured on cbs’s Good

Morning America, NBC’s Today Show and Sunday Today, and pbs’s Mister

Rogers’ Neighborhood. The group is a regular guest on commercial and

public radio networks nationwide, such as Saint Paul Sunday Morning,

Traditions, and NPR’s Performance Today.

The Empire Brass has served as Faculty Quintet-in-Residence at

Boston University for thirteen years, and has led the Empire Brass

Seminar at the Boston University Tanglewood Institute for over twenty

years. In 1991 it began a new appointment as Visiting Consultants in 

Brass at London’s Royal Academy of Music. It also leads an annual series

of college clinics cosponsored by the Selmer Company, maker ofthe

Empire Brass’s instruments.
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12429 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 5 4 5 - C R - T - 3 0 - E AJ U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A N U E L C O L O R A D O - G O N G O R A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e llan t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 19, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an dH IL L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P e te rA . S a rte s , ap p o in te dc o u n s e l f o rM a n u e l C o lo r a d o - G o n g o r ain th is2

di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e llan t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd H e rna nde z ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd sen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .
#### O’Bryan Brothers *et al. v.*Hardwick & Co. *et al.*

There was no abuse of discretion in the judgment revoking the restraining order and denying the injunction prayed for.

July 30, 1894.

Petition for injunction, etc. Before Judge Milner. Whitfield county. February 21, 1894.

Jones & Martin, for plaintiffs. R. J. & J. McCamy and McCutchen & Shumate, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed,.*