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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

1Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914

(5th Cir. 1992).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10271

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK ERWIN GARNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(7:95-CR-4-1-X)

January 15, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Erwin Garner entered a conditional guilty plea1preserving an appeal
2United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1992).

2

of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized by state officers during an

inventory search of his vehicle. Although not decided below, Garner contends that

the search was unconstitutional under Texas law; he does not contend that the

search was unconstitutional under federal constitutional standards, candidly

recognizing that controlling federal authority is to the contrary.

Garner urges us to adopt a rule that a federal conviction cannot rest on

evidence seized during a search conducted by state officers which is found to be

unconstitutional under state law. We decline to do so. In determining the

admissibility of evidence in a federal court, that state law may have been violated

in the obtaining of the evidence is not dispositive.2 The constitutional validity of

the search must be resolved by application of controlling federal standards.

The ruling of the district court in denying the motion to suppress and its

acceptance of the guilty plea and sentence are AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39577-39578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 6756-009, 4337-008, 5307-003]


Notice of Transfer of Exemptions: Lower Valley, LLC; West 
Hopkinton Hydro, LLC; Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC; Green Mountain 
Power Corporation

    1. By letter filed June 27, 2017, three different exemptees 
informed the Commission that their projects were transferred to Green 
Mountain Power Corporation. They are: (1) Lower Valley, LLC exemptee 
for the Lower Valley Project No. 6756, originally issued

[[Page 39578]]

November 9, 1982 \1\ located on the Sugar River in Sullivan County, New 
Hampshire; (2) West Hopkinton Hydro, LLC exemptee for the Hoague-
Sprague Project No. 4337, originally issued March 11, 1982 \2\ located 
on the Contoocook River in Merrimack County, New Hampshire; and (3) the 
Sweetwater Hydroelectric, LLC exemptee for the Woodsville Reactivation 
Project No. 5307, originally issued February 5, 1982 \3\ located on the 
Ammonoosuc River in Grafton County, New Hampshire. Transfer of an 
exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notice of Exemption from Licensing. Claremont Hydro 
Associates, 21 FERC 62,216 (1982).
    \2\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small 
Hydroelectric Project (5 MW or Less). ECH Hydro Associates, 18 FERC 
62,419 (1982).
    \3\ Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small 
Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less and Denying Competing 
Application for Preliminary Permit, New England Hydro, Inc. 
Woodsville Fire District, 18 FERC 62,158 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Green Mountain Power Corporation is now the exemptee of the 
Lower Valley Project No. 6756; the Hoague-Sprague Project No. 4337; and 
the Woodsville Reactivation Project No. 5307. All correspondence should 
be forwarded to: Green Mountain Power Corporation, 163 Acorn Lane, 
Colchester, VT 05446.

    Dated: August 15, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17558 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       8,569,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,681,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,522,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,901,645
<PP&E>                                   1,142,720,534
<DEPRECIATION>                             190,612,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,050,563,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      123,305,196
<BONDS>                                    380,237,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    49,537,731
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,799,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,050,563,850
<SALES>                                     52,124,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           174,865,578
<CGS>                                        9,713,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              140,402,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           165,321,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,889,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,323,029)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,761,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,561,686)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (31.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (31.17)


</TABLE>
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of Capital income Builder, Inc.


In planning and  performing  our audit of the  financial  statements  of Capital
Income  Builder,  Inc.  (the  "Fund")  for the year ended  October  31,  2004 we
considered its internal control,  including control  activities for safeguarding
securities,  in order to determine  our auditing  procedures  for the purpose of
expressing  our  opinion  on the  financial  statements  and to comply  with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal control.

The  management of the Fund is  responsible  for  establishing  and  maintaining
internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility,  estimates and judgments by
management  are  required to assess the expected  benefits and related  costs of
controls.  Generally,  controls  that are  relevant  to an audit  pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial  statements for external purposes that
are  fairly   presented  in  conformity  with  generally   accepted   accounting
principles.   Those  controls   include  the   safeguarding  of  assets  against
unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent  limitations in internal control,  errors or fraud may occur
and not be detected.  Also,  projection of any evaluation of internal control to
future  periods  is  subject to the risk that  controls  may  become  inadequate
because of changes in conditions or that the  effectiveness  of their design and
operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters
in  internal   control  that  might  be  material   weaknesses  under  standards
established by the Public Company Accounting  Oversight Board (United States). A
material  weakness,  for  purposes of this  report,  is a condition in which the
design or operation of one or more of the internal  control  components does not
reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements  caused by error or
fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial  statements
being audited may occur and not be detected  within a timely period by employees
in the normal course of performing their assigned  functions.  However, we noted
no matters involving internal control and its operation,  including controls for
safeguarding  securities,  that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of October 31, 2004.

This  report is  intended  solely  for the  information  and use of the Board of
Directors,  management  and the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission and is not
intended  to be and  should not be used by anyone  other  than  these  specified
parties.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Los Angeles, California
December 14, 2004
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50502 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RUBEN ESPINOZA, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-262-1
Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ruben Espinoza, Jr., raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000), which held that Apprendi v. NewJersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) does not preclude the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841, provided that the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the offense. See also United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.) (except in the case of substantial assistance to the United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50502

2 Government or compliancewith the safety valve criteria, sentencing courts, post United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), lack discretion to depart below relevant statutory minimums), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 212 (2008). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
1 Although Mr. Martin did file a pleading styled “Motion for Injunctive Relief,” it does not seek an

injunction, but rather an accounting as to a trust fund which he contends he had established for his children.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 31, 2002

NANCY BARNARD MARTIN v. CHARLES HOWARD MARTIN 

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Sevier County

No. 00-8-318 Telford E. Forgety, Jr., Chancellor

FILED FEBRUARY 19, 2003

No. E2001-01569-COA-R3-CV

Charles Howard Martin appeals a judgment of the Trial Court which awarded Nancy Barnard Martin

a divorce and certain other relief. We affirm.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed;

Cause Remanded

HOUSTONM.GODDARD,P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P.FRANKS and

CHARLES D. SUSANO, J., JJ., joined.

Charles Howard Martin, Pro Se

John H. Fowler, Sevierville, Tennessee, for the Appellee, Nancy Barnard Maratin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles Howard Martin, an inmate of the Penal System of this State, appeals a judgment

rendered in a divorce proceeding. He questions whether the personal property of the parties was

equitably divided, whether he was entitled to an injunctive relief,1 whether the Trial Court erred in

not issuing eight subpoenas on his behalf, and whether the Trial Court erred in giving him notice that

the divorce hearing was set for June 26, 2001, but hearing the case on June 25, 2001. 
--

2

Our review of the record persuades us that the statement of the evidence (see appendix) filed

and approved by the Trial Court refutes each of the errors asserted and that this is an appropriate case

for affirmance under Rule 10 of this Court. 

 The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for such further proceedings, if any, as may be

necessary and for collection of costs below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Charles Howard

Martin.

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
exv4w58






Exhibit 4.58




NOVATION AGREEMENT



This Novation Agreement is made this 8th August 2008 between:





	1.	 	Parsons Brinckerhoff (Asia) Limited
 of 7th Floor,
One Kowloon, 1 Wang Yuen Street, Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as
“Parsons”),
	 
	2.	 	Zastron Precision-Tech Limited  of Units 5811-5812,
58th Floor, The Center, 99 Queen’s Road Central, Central, Hong Kong (hereinafter
referred to as “ZPT”),
	 
	3.	 	Nam Tai Electronic & Electrical Products Limited of Units 5811-5812,
58th Floor, The Center, 99 Queen’s Road Central, Central, Hong Kong
(hereinafter referred to as “NTEEP”).





WHEREAS:





	(I)	 	Parsons and ZPT have entered into a Design Consultancy Agreement
dated 30 July 2007 in respect of a building project in Wuxi (“the
Agreement”).
	 
	(II)	 	ZPT wishes to be released and discharged from the Agreement and
Parsons has agreed to release and discharge ZPT, upon NTEEP
undertaking to perform the Agreement and to be bound by the terms of
the Agreement in place of ZPT with effect from the date of this Novation
Agreement (“this Date”).




NOW THIS NOVATION AGREEMENT WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:





	1.	 	NTEEP undertakes with Parsons with effect from this Date to be bound by and to perform all
the terms of the Agreement and to assume all obligations and duties and liabilities under the
Agreement in every way as if NTEEP were an original party to the Agreement in lieu of ZPT.





 









 






	2.	 	NTEEP hereby ratifies all previous acts and deeds taken or done by ZPT
with respect to the Agreement as if the same had been taken or done by
NTEEP.
	 
	3.	 	ZPT hereby assigns and transfers to NTEEP all rights, benefits, titles and
interest of ZPT in and under the Agreement. The term  as
used in the Agreement shall as from this Date refer to NTEEP.
	 
	4.	 	With effect from this Date, Parsons releases and discharges ZPT from all
claims and demands and liabilities whatever in respect of or related to the
Agreement and accepts the liability of NTEEP under the Agreement in lieu
of the liability of ZPT and agrees to be bound by and to perform all the
terms of the Agreement in every way as if NTEEP were an original party to
the Agreement in lieu of ZPT.
	 
	5.	 	This Novation Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with Hong Kong laws, and the parties hereto submit to the

non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed the Novation Agreement the day and year
first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signed by Parsons Brinckerhoff

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	(Asia) Limited and its duly

	 	 	)	 	 	[Signed]
	authorized representative

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sealed with the Common Seal of

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Zastron Precision-Tech Limited and

	 	 	)	 	 	[Signed]
	Signed by John Quinto Farina

	 	 	)	 	 	 






 









 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	its director

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sealed with the Common Seal of

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Nam Tai Electronic & Electrical

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Products Limited and signed by

	 	 	)	 	 	[Signed]
	Masaaki Yasukawa and

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	Wong Kuen Ling

	 	 	)	 	 	 
	its directors

	 	 	)
#### McCARTHY v. BENTON.

Civ. A. 1335-52.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Nov. 12, 1952.

*455Joseph R. McCarthy, Warren E. Magee, Edward B. Williams, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Van Arkel & Kaiser, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

McGUIRE, District Judge.

This is a motion under Rule 37 F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A., to compel defendant to answer certain questions propounded to him under the provisions of *Rule 26 F.R.*C.P. for the taking of depositions. Despite the extreme liberality of the new Rules matter clearly privileged or irrelevant will not be permitted to be inquired into.

The questions here asked relate to the period August 31, 1945-September 30, 1947, when defendant was Assistant Secretary of State. The period with which the cause of action is concerned is February 9, 1950 and February 10, 1950 and thereabouts. While, as indicated, the Rule is broad and must as noted be liberally construed, still nevertheless the matter inquired about must certainly be, if not *de bene*admissible at the trial, at all events *relevant.*These questions fail not only in this regard in my view of the matter—but even if answered can indeed lead to nothing of a relevant character.

Motion denied for these and other reasons equally controlling and which are set forth in defendant’s memorandum in opposition, for which there is no need now to spell out. Same ruling as to alleged contributors to defense fund. Order accordingly.
SALIVA DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                                 MARCH 31, 2005


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


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

I, Steven Peltzman, Chief Executive Officer of Saliva Diagnostic Systems, Inc.,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      (1)   that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Saliva Diagnostic
            Systems, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on March 31, 2005 filed
            with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof at
            File No. 0-21284 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
            of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      (2)   that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Saliva Diagnostic Systems, Inc.

Dated:  May 13, 2005
                                       /s/ Steven M. Peltzman
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Steven M. Peltzman
                                       Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23a


                       Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-81566) pertaining to the 1991 Long-Term Incentive
Plan of Wolohan Lumber Co. of our report dated February 14, 1997, with
respect to the financial statements of Wolohan Lumber Co. for the years ended
December 28, 1996 and December 31, 1995, included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 27, 1997.


                                            /s/ Ernst & Young,LLP



Detroit, Michigan
March 6, 1998
Exhibit 12
                                                                                
                                                                                
                              WISCONSIN BELL, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                        
                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                        
                                    1997      1996      1995      1994      1993
                                    ----      ----      ----      ----      ----


1. EARNINGS

 a) Income before interest expense,
    income tax, extraordinary
    item and undistributed
    equity earnings (2)......  $  358.0  $  348.8  $  348.8  $  192.4  $  242.2
    

 b) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.1       4.8       4.6       4.4       4.7
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 1(a) and 1(b)    .  $  362.1  $  353.6  $  353.4  $  196.8  $  246.9
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
2. FIXED CHARGES

 a) Total interest expense
    including capital
    lease obligations........  $   30.3  $   28.1  $   29.5  $   28.5  $   31.6
    
 b) Capitalized interest .....       0.6       0.7       1.2       0.6       0.4

 c) Portion of rental expense
    representative of the
    interest factor (1)......       4.1       4.8       4.6       4.4       4.7
                               --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
     Total 2(a) through 2(c).  $   35.0  $   33.6  $   35.3  $   33.5  $   36.7
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
FIXED CHARGES.................    10.35     10.52     10.01      5.87      6.73
                               ========  ========  ========  ========  ========


(1)  One-third of rental expense is considered to be the amount representing
     return on capital.
     
(2)  The results for 1995 reflect a $24.1 million pretax credit primarily
     from settlement gains resulting from lump sum pension payments from the
     pension plan to former employees who left the business in the
     nonmanagement work force restructuring.  Results for 1994 reflect a
     $71.8 million pretax charge associated with the nonmanagement work force
     restructuring.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PALIGENT INC. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), SalvatoreA. Bucci, as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 13, 2004 | by:    | /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci                 |
|----------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Salvatore A. Bucci                     |
|                             |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                             |   | (Principal Financial  Officer)         |

 

----