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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-20851

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ODON GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CR-31-3

- - - - - - - - - -

January 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Odon Gomez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of

marijuana. Gomez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He

also challenges the district court’s rulings regarding witness

Rosalda Guerra’s testimony. Gomez contends that the district

court’s decisions to admit Guerra’s direct examination testimony,

as restricted, and to allow Guerra to invoke the Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination as to questions related to 
No. 97-20851

-2-

the purpose of Gomez’s trip to Houston impermissibly limited his

Sixth Amendment right of confrontation and caused him prejudice.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the

evidence was sufficient to convict Gomez of voluntarily

participating in the conspiracy. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it

admitted Rosalda Guerra’s direct examination testimony and

decided that it would allow Guerra to invoke the Fifth Amendment

privilege to questions related to the purpose of Gomez’s trip to

Houston. Gomez was allowed to test the truthfulness of Guerra’s

testimony on cross-examination, and he has not shown prejudice

resulting from the district court’s decision that Guerra could

invoke the privilege as to questions related to her knowledge of

the purpose of Gomez’s trip to Houston. Gomez has not shown

reversible error. See United States v. Ornelas-Rodriguez, 12

F.3d 1339, 1348 (5th Cir. 1994)(Defendant must show that

government made “a flagrant attempt to build its case on

inferences arising from the assertion of the privilege” and that

“the refusal to answer add[ed] considerable weight to the

government’s case.”).

Gomez’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                              CERTIFICATION BY THE
                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                       OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, W. Gordon Lancaster, Chief Financial Officer, of Ivanhoe Energy Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify that:

(a) the Company's periodic report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003 (the "Form 10-K"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations;
and

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


                                      * * *





Chief Financial Officer

By:   /s/  W. Gordon Lancaster
      --------------------------------------------
      W. Gordon Lancaster


Date: March 2, 2004
Motion Granted; Order filed August 20, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00101-CR

____________

JORGE GUERRERO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1354948

O R D E R

Appellant filed a motion requesting the clerk’s record in this case to be 

supplemented with the juvenile clerk's record in cause number 2012-00331J in the 

314th Juvenile District Court.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before September 20, 2013, containing the juvenile clerk's record in 

cause number 2012-00331J in the 314th Juvenile District Court.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

Appellant’s brief is due 30 days after the date the supplemental clerk’s 

record is filed.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 3, 2010



/S/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph GressChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report.
#### KELLY v. DELAWARE RIVER JOINT COMMISSION et al.

No. 9303.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 27, 1950.

.Txxdgxnent Affirmed Jan. 26,1951.

See 187 F.2d 93.

Henry D. O’Connor, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, Pa., for Delaware River Joint Commission and J. I. Hass Co.

Philip Price, Philadelphia, Pa., for Philadelphia Transp. Co.

GANEY, District Judge.

This is a motion to. amend a complaint one year after a judgment of dismissal has been entered and unappealed from. D.C., 85 F.Supp. 15.

Since a judgment of dismissal has been here entered, the proper procedure would be a petition for leave to open the judgment, coupled with a request for leave to. amend. However, considering this petition as covering both of these requests, the question then posed is whether leave to amend may be allowed.

*456While a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within the meaning of 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., United States v. Newbury Mfg. C.o. et al., 1 Cir., 123 F.2d 453, nevertheless it was never intended that a plaintiff should have the right to amend without limit of time after judgment of dismissal has been entered. It would seem that the limit of one year set in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules, supra, is a fair limit within which the Court should exercise its discretionary power. Kroell v. New York Ambassador, Inc., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 294, 296.

Since one year has here elapsed, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5033 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5033

    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain meatless frozen food 
                               products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2004

  Mr. Shays introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on certain meatless frozen food 
                               products.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN FROZEN MEATLESS PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.21.07       Frozen meatless    Free         No Change        No Change        On or Before 12/  ''.
                         preparations or                                                    31/2007
                         frozen meat
                         substitutes
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2106.90.99)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIDENSE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2013-1009.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 10, 2013.

Mark L. Hogge, SNR Denton US, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Shailendra K. Maheshwari, Rachel Repka, Khaliq A. Imran and Andrew Blair. Of counsel was James A. Klenk.

Roger L. Cook, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Robert D. Tadlock and Sara B. Giardina. Of counsel was Joshua Hamilton Lee, of Atlanta, GA.

RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### In the Matter of Franklin Klein, Respondent, v Trisha Klein-Annis, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 785]

*649Under the facts of this case, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s objection to an order of the Support Magistrate awarding her an attorney’s fee in the sum of only $4,500. Upon consideration, inter alia, of the detailed invoices itemizing the legal services rendered by the mother’s attorney in successfully defending against the father’s application for a downward modification of his child support obligation, as well as the legal services provided in connection with the mother’s fee application, an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $10,000 and disbursements in the sum of $577.20 is warranted *(see*Family Ct Act § 438; *O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187 [1999]; *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rósete,*70 NY2d 879 [1987]; *Matter of Wolfert v Wolfert,*35 AD3d 870, 871 [2006]; *Matter of Giliya v Warren,*30 AD3d 420 [2006]; *Matter of Musarra v Musarra,*28 AD3d 668 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

         Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Sec. 906

In connection with the annual report of Debt Resolve, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James D.
Burchetta, Chief Executive 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.

Date: March 22, 2005                    /s/ JAMES D. BURCHETTA
                                        ------------------------------
                                            James D. Burchetta
                                            Chief Executive Officer




         Certification of Principal Accounting Officer pursuant to Sec. 906

In connection with the annual report of Debt Resolve, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James D.
Burchetta, Principal Accounting 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.

Date: March 22, 2005                    /s/ JAMES D. BURCHETTA
                                        ------------------------------
                                            James D. Burchetta
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
329606-1

557114.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Alan C. Milstein, Esquire, hereby certify as follows:

I am an attorney at law admitted to practice before this Court and am a member of the

firm Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, attorneys for Plaintiff CITY SELECT AUTO

SALES, INC., a New Jersey corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of

similarly situated persons in the above-captioned matter. On Thursday, January 09, 2014, I

electronically filed the foregoing with the United States District Court for the District of New

Jersey, using the CM/ECF system and served the same on the following persons in the matter

shown:

Served via CM/ECF

Emmett Fitzpatrick, Esquire

Flamm, Boroff & Bacine, PC

794 Penllyn Pike

Blue Bell, PA 19422

SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL,

ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.

BY: S/Alan C. Milstein

Alan C. Milstein

East Gate Center

308 Harper Drive

Suite 200

Moorestown, NJ 0857

Telephone: (856) 662-0700

FAX: (856) 488-4744

Counsel for Plaintiff, City Select Auto

Sales, Inc. individually and as the

representative of a class of similarlysituated persons and the Class

DATE: Thursday, January 09, 2014

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 97-1 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 3651
EX-10.30



 Exhibit 10.30 
 Fourth Amendment to 
 Employee Stock Purchase Plan 

The definition of “U.S. Subsidiary” in Article 2 of the Stericycle, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan is amended to read as
follows, effective as of September 14, 2012: 
 U.S. Subsidiary means a “subsidiary
corporation” as defined in Section 424(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (with the Company as the “employer corporation”) which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware or another American state or under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
SIXING Liii,

a/k/u “Steve Lu” U LU

Upon the application of Paul .1. Fishman. I. iniled Ndates Attorney tr the Disirict of New

Jersey (by I Judson Welle, Assistant US, Attorney vit h c consent oi the dv lendaul S ixing

Liii (by Valerie Y. C Wong. Uscj.). and good cause uppea nn:.

iT IS HERLI3Y ORDERLI) that the deadline set Ioi th in (lie Addeiidaiii to Attachment U

of the Search Warrant issued on March 4, 2(111 in (use Ntniiher I I I I by the I initd States

District Court for the Northern District of II linois which authorized I he search of the deleudant s

residence in i)eerfield, Illinois. is hereby extended for a period of thiiiy (30) days born the entry

of this order as it relates to property presently IocaiefIie District nt New Jersey

IT IS SO ORDEREE), on the 2$ otApril 2011

HO (I I STANLEY U. (IILSLLR mired States I )Urrct Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

/_

Z

//

/ Z :4 /1 z1 7/7

c -- / _/i / N i i\ssist nit U S Attoinc fl i 0 i lt 110 lii Sl\luC In
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF   Document 194   Filed 03/11/15   Page 1 of 4 PageID: 2839

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF   Document 194   Filed 03/11/15   Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2840

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF   Document 194   Filed 03/11/15   Page 3 of 4 PageID: 2841

Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF   Document 194   Filed 03/11/15   Page 4 of 4 PageID: 2842
EXHIBIT 10.5.2


 


AMENDMENT
TO


DUKE
ENERGY CORPORATION EXECUTIVE SAVINGS PLAN


(as
Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2008)


 


The Duke Energy Corporation Executive Savings
Plan (as Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2008), and as subsequently
amended (the "Plan"), is amended, effective for the Plan Year
beginning January 1, 2013, as follows:


1.     Section 3.1 of the
Plan is hereby amended to add the following at the end thereof:


“The Committee may at any time, in its sole
discretion, change the eligibility criteria for Employees such that all or
certain Employees are not eligible for one or more Plan Years to make an
election to defer one or more types of compensation, including Base Pay,
Incentive Plan payments, LTIP Awards, dividend equivalents, and/or Company
Matching Contributions.”


2.     Section 3.3 of the
Plan is hereby amended by deleting the second sentence thereof.


3.     Section 4.5 of the
Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end
thereof:


“If an Employee is eligible to make
contributions to the Progress Energy 401(k) Savings & Stock Ownership Plan
("Progress Plan") rather than the RSP, then this Section 4.5 shall
apply to the Employee with (i) "Progress Plan" substituted for
"RSP" in each place (other than the first sentence) that
"RSP" is referenced, (ii) "Pre-Tax Deferred Contributions,
Additional Pre-Tax Deferred Contributions, Roth Contributions, Additional Roth
Contributions, After-tax Savings, and Additional After-tax Savings"
substituted for "Before-Tax Eligible Deferrals and Roth
Contributions" in each place "Before-Tax Eligible Deferrals and Roth
Contributions" is referenced, (iii) the deletion of the phrase “and
Incentive Plan deferrals” in subparagraph (b) above, and (iv) "Company
Matching Allocations" substituted for "Matching Contribution" in
each place "Matching Contribution" is referenced in subparagraph (c)
above.”


This
amendment has been executed by an authorized officer of Duke Energy Corporation
on November 8, 2012.


DUKE ENERGY
CORPORATION


  By: Jennifer L.
Weber_______________


Name: Jennifer L. Weber


Title:  Executive Vice
President and 


Chief Human Resources
Officer
#### In re: MEDTRONIC, INC., IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATORS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Nancy McGinley, etc. v. Medtronic USA, Inc., et al., D. Nebraska, C.A. No. 8:07-424.

MDL No. 1726.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 8, 2008.

Before D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman*, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA*, Judges of the Panel.

*

 Judges Heyburn and Scirica took no part in the disposition of this matter.

*1371ORDER VACATING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER

D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman.

Before the entire Panel*: Defendants Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic), in an action pending in the District of Nebraska have moved pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), asking the Panel to vacate its order conditionally transferring the action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in MDL No. 1726. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that any factual questions that this action may share with the MDL No. 1726 actions are insufficient to warrant transfer at this time. Specifically, the action contains allegations involving a Med-tronic device that was not subject to the recalls of either April 2004 (involving Gem DR or Micro Jewel II Cx devices implanted in 1997 and 1998) or February 2005 (embracing Marquis devices with batteries manufactured between April 2001 and December 2003) that are at issue in MDL No. 1726. Accordingly, we are persuaded that inclusion of this action in MDL No. 1726 is not warranted.

Should such a need arise, alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings between this action and the MDL No. 1726 actions. *See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation,*446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978); *see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth),*§ 20.14(2004).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that our conditional transfer order designated as “CTO-41” is vacated.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Centillium Communications, Inc. of ourreports dated March 13, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Centillium Communications, Inc. andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Centillium Communications Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2007: 

Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-107445) pertaining to the registration of securities aggregating$90,000,000.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-48534) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-56610) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan, 2000 Employee StockPurchase Plan,
2001 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan vEngines, Inc. and 2000 Stock Incentive Plan.
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85236) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-103271) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-113318) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-123280) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-132485) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-142552) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Plan and 2000 EmployeeStock Purchase Plan.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP                

San Jose, California
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5204 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5204

  To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
children's hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination 
    of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated with 
    operating approved graduate medical residency training programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2004

  Ms. Eshoo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 
children's hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination 
    of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated with 
    operating approved graduate medical residency training programs.

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

SECTION 1. DISREGARD OF NEWBORN BASSINETS IN CALCULATING CASE MIX FOR 
              RECEIPT BY CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS OF FUNDING FOR GRADUATE 
              MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 340E(d) of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 256e(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``related to'' and 
        inserting ``associated with''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(A)--
                    (A) by inserting ``ratio of the'' after ``hospitals 
                and the''; and
                    (B) by inserting at the end before the semicolon 
                ``to beds (but excluding beds or bassinets assigned to 
                healthy newborn infants)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments for periods beginning with fiscal year 2005.
                                 <all>
```