alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEJUAN ANDERKO WATKINS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-106-FO) Submitted: December 17, 2003 Decided: February 2, 2004 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dejuan Anderko Watkins appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, for at tempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). On appeal, Watkins contends that his uncorroborated confession is insufficient to support his conviction. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that there was substantial independent evidence to corroborate Watkins’ confession, and the evidence as a whole proved Watkins’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. United States , 348 U.S. 147, 156 (1954). Watkins also contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because he did not take a substantial step towards the completion of the offense. We disagree. The record clearly establishes that Watkins took several substantial steps toward the completion of the crime. SeeUnited States v. Neal , 78 F.3d 901, 906 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, and assuming that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Watkins’ conviction. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Sun , 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996).- 3 - 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
EXHIBIT 13**CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infineon Technologies AG (the“Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wolfgang Ziebart, as Member of theManagement Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J. Fischl, as Member of theManagement Board and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofhis knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Thiscertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.Date: November 23, 2005         By:                                                                 /s/ DR. WOLFGANG ZIEBART       Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart
Case 2:11-cv-04699-SDW-MCA Document 25 Filed 03/13/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 146
#### Christopher A. FINGER, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 2012-3122.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 4, 2013.

*958Taniel E. Anderson, Arent Fox LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. With him on the brief was Anthony W. Shaw.

Sara B. Rearden, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were James M. Eisenmann, General Counsel, and Keisha Dawn Bell, Deputy General Counsel. Of counsel was Antonia Ramos Soares, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC.

RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. .

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# 2018 pop adjustment effect
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 83 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1874
Case 3:11-cv-02317-JAP-DEA Document 83 Filed 06/27/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1875
**EXHIBIT 21.1**
**OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**
**Subsidiaries of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.**
**(All 100% Owned)**
     Registrant’ssignificant consolidated subsidiaries and the state or jurisdiction of organization of each subsidiary are shown below:   **Name of Subsidiary** **Jurisdiction of Incorporation**OmniVision International Holding Ltd. Cayman IslandsHuaWei Technology International, Ltd. Cayman Islands     (formerly OmniView Technology International, Ltd.)  OmniVision Technologies (Hong Kong) Company Limited Hong Kong, ChinaOmniVision Trading (Hong Kong) Company Limited Hong Kong, ChinaHuaWei Semiconductor (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Shanghai, China     (formerly OmniView Electronic (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.)  Shanghai OmniVision IC Design Co., Ltd. Shanghai, ChinaSilicon Optronics, Inc. Taipei, TaiwanCDM Optics, Inc. Boulder, CO.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, P. L.
Montesi, President, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 my 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ P.L. Montesi
----------------------------------------------------
P.L. Montesi
President, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
Case 3:11-cr-00328-PGS Document 35 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 33
Case 3:11-cr-00328-PGS Document 35 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 34
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Income Statements and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,939
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     30,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,978
<PP&E>                                          21,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,155
<SALES>                                         98,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,125
<CGS>                                           63,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,395
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                       917
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
ABN AMRO

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc.

4242 North Harlem Avenue

Norridge, Illinois 60706 1283

www.mortgage.com

Management's Assertion on Compliance with the Minimum Servicing

Standards Set Forth in the *Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers

Report of Management

 

We, as members of management of ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. (AAMG, a wholly   owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation) are responsible for complying with the    minimum servicing standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* (USAP). We are also responsible     for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with these standards. We have performed an evaluation of AAMG's compliance with the minimum servicing       standards as set forth in the USAP as of December 31, 2002 and for the year then ended. Based  on this evaluation, we assert that during the year ended December 31, 2002, AAMG complied, in all material respects, with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP except as     described below.

Escrow funds were not returned to mortgagors within 30 calendar days of payoff for 2 out of the 25 loans tested.

As of and for this same period, LaSalle Bank Corporation had in effect a fidelity bond in  the amount of $500,000,000 and an error and omissions policy in the amount of $25,000,000.

 

 
*Stanley Rhodes				
Stanley Rhodes					

President					
*Richard Geary

Richard Geary

Group Senior Vice President

 

January 20, 2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affiliate Banks and Other Lending Offices: ABN AMRO Mortgage, LaSalle Bank N.A., LaSalle Home Mortgage, Standard Federal Bank NA***
Case 1:11-cv-04036-RBK-JS Document 17 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 297
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1844

LINDA SYDNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-580-K)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda Sydnor, Appellant Pro Se. Valerie Valenti Cloutier, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the

employer's motion for summary judgment in Appellant's action filed

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§

12101-12117 (1994), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29

U.S.C. §§ 791-794 (1994), and MD. ANN. CODE art. 49B, §§ 7, 16

(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant failed to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm. See

Ennis v. National Ass'n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th

Cir. 1995). 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Linda C Reddick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Annual Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Dated: March 13, 2008 | Linda C. Reddick Chief Financial Officer
           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
VIA FACSIMILEHonorable Lois H. Goodman, U,SM,J,U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Dear Judge Goodman:

Our firm, along with our co-counsel Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCIoy,

represents Plaintiff Orexo AB in the above-referenced matter. We write on behalf of

all parties to seek the Court’s approval of a brief extension of the deadline to file the

Joint Claim Construction and Pre-hearing Statement, which is due to be filed today.

The Parties have been working but will be unable to finalize the submission

by today’s deadline. The Parties believe that they will be able to submit the joint

statement by the end of Tuesday, June 26.

Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request an extension to file the Joint

Claim Construction and Pre-hearing Statement to June 26, 2012.

If the Court finds this extension acceptable, we ask that the Court “So Order”

this letter and have it entered on the docket.

We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

s/John E. Flaherty

John E. Flaherty

cc: All Counsel (via email)

Re: Orexo AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.., et al.

Civil Action No 11-3788 (FLW) (LHG) John E. FJahehy Partner

T 973 639 7903

F 9732973971

f1ahertyC;rnccertercorn

McCarter & Engish, LLP

Four Gateway 0etne

100 Muiberry Street

Newark. N 0710T4056

T 973 6224444

F. 973A24]070

wwwrnccarter corn

H:: ma

MEl 1318113 iv,1
Exhibit
32.1





EXTERRAN
PARTNERS, L.P.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Exterran Partners, L.P.
(the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ernie L.
Danner, as Chief Executive Officer of Exterran GP LLC, the general partner of
the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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
      Partnership.





/s/ ERNIE L.
DANNER


Ernie L.
Danner


Chief
Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC


As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.


As General Partner of Exterran Partners,
L.P.





November
5, 2009





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 Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: August 14, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaChief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)
1

The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2609

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Gregory Dell Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 27, 2009

Filed: November 2, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Johnson (Johnson) challenges the sentence the district court1

 imposed

after he pled guilty to a drug crime. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seeks permission to withdraw, arguing

that the district court erred in determining the amount of drugs attributable to Johnson

which resulted in a 120-month statutory minimum. Johnson filed a pro se

supplemental brief reiterating this argument.
-2-

We enforce the appeal waiver in this case. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d

886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (deciding our court will enforce an appeal

waiver in a plea agreement when the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver, both

waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and

enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice). This appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver contained in Johnson’s plea agreement, the record

shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and we discover nothing to suggest

a miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the appeal waiver. See United

States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding the only authority for

a district court to depart from a statutory minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when the government makes a motion for

substantial assistance or the defendant qualifies for safety-valve relief).

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss the appeal. 

______________________________
Case 2:11-cr-00471-KSH Document 33 Filed 12/14/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 112
Case 2:11-cr-00471-KSH Document 33 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 113
Case 2:11-cr-00471-KSH Document 33 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 114
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 113 

To appropriate funds for pay and allowances of excepted Federal employees, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. YOUNG, Mr. 

ALEXANDER, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate funds for pay and allowances of excepted 

Federal employees, 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 ‘‘Shutdown Fairness 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 113 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘agency’’ means each authority of 

2 the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the 

3 Government of the United States; and 

4 (2) the term ‘‘excepted employee’’— 

5 (A) means an employee of an agency who 

6 the head of that agency determines is an ex7 cepted employee or an employee performing 

8 emergency work, as those terms are defined by 

9 the Office of Personnel Management; and 

10 (B) includes a contractor who— 

11 (i) provides support to an employee 

12 described in subparagraph (A); and 

13 (ii) is required to perform work dur14 ing a lapse in appropriations, as deter15 mined by the head of the agency with re16 spect to which the contractor provides sup17 port. 

18 (b) APPROPRIATIONS.—There are appropriated for 

19 the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, out of any 

20 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for any 

21 period during which interim or full-year appropriations for 

22 that fiscal year are not in effect, such sums as are nec23 essary to provide pay and allowances to excepted employ24 ees who are required to perform work during that period. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 113 IS

1 (c) TERMINATION.—Subject to subsection (d), appro2 priations and funds made available and authority granted 

3 under subsection (b) shall be available until whichever of 

4 the following first occurs: 

5 (1) The enactment into law of an appropriation 

6 (including a continuing appropriation) for any pur7 pose for which amounts are made available under 

8 subsection (b). 

9 (2) The enactment into law of the applicable 

10 regular or continuing appropriations resolution or 

11 other Act without any appropriation for such pur12 pose. 

13 (3) January 1, 2020. 

14 (d) SUBSEQUENT LAPSES.—Appropriations made 

15 available under subsection (b) may not be obligated during 

16 any period during which continuing appropriations for any 

17 purpose for which amounts are made available under sub18 section (b) are in effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5376

For the relief of Nancy P. Gilbert. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2004

Mr. COLLINS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

For the relief of Nancy P. Gilbert.

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

3 SECTION 1. POSTHUMOUS PROMOTION. 

4 Nancy P. Gilbert, formerly of Marietta, Georgia, is 

5 hereby posthumously promoted to the position of GS–

6 1810–13 supervisory investigator in the Atlanta District 

7 Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 

8 effective as of July 2, 2001. This section shall not be taken 

9 into account for any pay or other personnel management 

10 purposes.

Æ