alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

Foreign NVOCC Registration Terminations/Suspensions

April 2019

Bipex Co., Ltd. 

Org No.: 023952

Address: 1817 Jungang-Daero

Geumjeong-Gu

Busan 

South Korea

Termination: April 13, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Charter Logistics Shanghai Limited

Org No.: 024394

Address: Room 1203, Yao Jiang International Plaza

No. 308 Wu Song Road, Hong Kou District 

Shanghai 

China 

Termination: April 07, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Dongsue Shipping Co., Ltd. 

Org No.: 013399

Address: Room 72, 10/F., Kukje Electronics Center, 1445-3

Seocho-Dong, Seocho-Ku

Seoul

South Korea

Termination: April 21, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Fnroad Korea Co., Ltd. dba Fnroad Korea

Org No.: 025517

Address: Room 5, 21/F., 331 Dongmak-Ro

Mapo-Gu

Seoul 121-748

South Korea

Termination: April 09, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond
Jet Freight Global Co., Ltd. 

Org No.: 026521

Address: RM 2005, Global New Times Plaza

No. 1666, Sichuan (N) Road

Shanghai 

China 

Termination: April 11, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Jet Ocean International Logistics Limited

Org No.: 025418

Address: Unit 169, 3/F., Wing Tat Commercial Bldg. 

97 Bonham Strand East 

Sheung Wan 

Hong Kong

Termination: April 14, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Sea & Sky International Logistics Co., Limited.

Org No.: 026522

Address: Rm 1-1902, R & F Center, Hefei & Nanchang Road

Jiaokou Hexi District 

Tianjin 300203

China

Termination: April 11, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond

Seaworld Express Lines Limited 

Org No.: 021456

Address: 206 York House

2-4 York Road

Felixstowe IP117SS

United Kingdom

Termination: April 08, 2019

Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00559

- CV

Alize Imari SMITH, Appellant

v.

John Kenneth WILSON IV, Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020EM502226

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In a regular appeal such as this one, a notice of appeal ordinarily is due within thirty (30) days after the judgment is signed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1. In this case, the trial court signed the judgment on November 9, 2021. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on

December 9 , 2021

. See id. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due to
be filed on December 24 , 2021. See id. R. 26.3 . On D ecember 16, 2021 , appellant filed her notice of appeal. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, s he did not file a motion for extension of time.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond t he time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v.

Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C) ; see also Hone v. Hanafin , 104 S.W.3d 884, 886

– 87 (Tex. 2003) (holding “a reasonable explanation” is any plausibl e statement of circumstances indicating that failure to timely file was not deliberate or intentional but was the result of inadvertence, mistake or mischance, and that “any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence , mistake or mischance ”) (citation ommitted)

.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within ten days from the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file a notice of appeal in a timelymanner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of April, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Harvey S. Traison, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of LaBranche & Co Inc., hereby certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of LaBranche & Co Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
August 9, 2004

| |  | /s/HARVEY S. TRAISONName: Harvey S. Traison
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### Steven J. KOMIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James C. SAXTON; Kirk Scherer; Melody J. Sullivan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15764.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2008.

Filed May 12, 2008.

G. Mark Albright, Albright Stoddard Warnick *&*Palmer, Las Vegas, NV, Brian Phillip Murray, Rabin & Peckel, LLP, New York, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas D. Beatty, Law Offices of Thomas D. Beatty, Las Vegas, NV, David M. Furbush, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Christopher H. McGrath, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, LLP, San Diego, CA, Daniel J. Shonkwiler, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Daniel J. Shonkwiler, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison Two Embarcadeero Place, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WALLACE and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

1. As to the alleged misrepresentations regarding the Taylor Ranch property, the *751two loans and the loans’ interest payments, plaintiff hasn’t alleged that these misrepresentations caused him an economic loss. Plaintiff does claim that he paid an “artificially inflated” price for stock, but an inflated purchase price, without more, isn’t sufficient to plead loss causation. *Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo,*544 U.S. 386, 347, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005). And although plaintiff alleges that the stock price fell when the company revealed its “true financial condition,” he does not further allege that this poor financial condition was caused by the loans and interest payments. This complaint isn’t like the complaint in *In re Daou Systems, Inc.,*411 F.3d 1006, 1025-27 (9th Cir.2005), which alleged that defendant’s parlous financial state was “the direct result” of the accounting practices concealed by defendant’s misrepresentations. *Id.*at 1027. Therefore, though plaintiff claims he “suffered damages in excess of $1.4 million,” his complaint “nowhere ... provides the defendants with notice of what ... the causal connection might be between that loss and the misrepresentation[s].” *Dura,*544 U.S. at 347,125 S.Ct. 1627.

2. As to the misrepresentations of the TCPs’ value, we held that plaintiffs’ first complaint failed to “meet the heightened PSLRA pleading requirement for scien-ter.” *In re Saxton, Inc. Sec. Litig.,*156 Fed.Appx. 917, 920 (9th Cir.2005). The amended complaint does not allege any new facts relevant to defendants’ scienter in overstating the TCPs’ value, so we are bound by our previous ruling. *See Leslie Salt Co. v. United States,*55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Unassociated Document


    
      


      [LETTERHEAD
        OF STAF*TEK]

      


      


      PROMISSORY
        NOTE

      TO

      MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL

      


      


      
        	
                $65,000.00

              	
                April
                  19, 2005

              


      

      


      


      For
        value
        received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
        as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
        ‘payee’) on or before April 25, 2005 the principal sum of Sixty Five Thousand
        and No/100 Dollars ($65,000.00), plus $525.00.

      


      Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $65,000.00 plus
        $525.00 interest.

      


      Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.

      


      The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 19th
        day of
        April, 2005.

      


      


      
        	
                /s/
                  Shelia Hobens

              	 	
                /s/
                  John H. Simmons

              
	
                Shelia
                  Hobens

              	 	
                John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.

              
	
                [notary
                  stamp]

              	 	
                Staf*Tek
                  Services, Inc.

              
	 	 	
                4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250

              
	 	 	
                Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **UNDER**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
 
 
 COLLECTORS
UNIVERSE, INC.
 
 Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q
 for the
Quarter ended December 31, 2004
 
 The
undersigned, Michael R. Haynes, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Collectors
Universe, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Quarterly Report”), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable
requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the
information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 
 Date:February
      14, 2005
    
    /s/
      MICHAELR.
      HAYNESMichaelR.
      HaynesChiefExecutive
      OfficerA
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Collectors Universe, Inc. and will be retained by Collectors
      Universe, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
      its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice: 17-076]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

                        Notice of renewal of the charter of the International Space Station                               ( print page 48534)                            National Laboratory Advisory Committee.                    

                    Pursuant to Sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined that renewal of the charter of the International Space Station National Laboratory Advisory Committee is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. This committee is established under Section 602 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-422, 51 U.S.C. Section 70906). The renewed charter is for a two-year period ending October 6, 2019. For further information, contact Ms. Marla K. King, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20456, phone: (202) 358-1148; email:                     *marla.k.king@nasa.gov.*

Patricia D. Rausch,

Advisory Committee Management Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2017-22549 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencyShares® British Pound Sterling Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Arruda, Chief Financial Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the Trust.

Date: January 14, 2011



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ JOSEPH ARRUDA
|Joseph Arruda*   

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Joseph Arruda is signing in his capacity as the principal financial officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the
Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT

I, Joseph Wallen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Quest Oil Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and,

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and,

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|      |                                                          
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------------
|By:   | /s/
Joseph Wallen

Joseph Wallen

Chief Financial Officer
|Date: | February 21, 2006
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17780

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:16-cr-60117-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

ANTHONY SWABY, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 29, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Anthony Swaby appeals his 120-month, below-the-guideline-range sentence, 

after pleading guilty to two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2113(a). On appeal, Swaby argues that he was incorrectly classified and sentenced 

as a career offender. Swaby argues that his previous conviction under Fla. Stat. 

§ 893.13(1), does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under U.S.S.G. 

§ 4B1.2(b) because the statute does not contain a mens rea element. Although he 

acknowledges that in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262, 1268 (11th Cir. 2014), 

we held that § 893.13 qualifies as a controlled substance offense, he argues that 

Smith conflicts with several Supreme Court decisions.

We review constitutional sentencing challenges de novo, which includes the 

question of whether a defendant’s prior convictions qualify as controlled substance 

offenses for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). See Smith, 775 F.3d at 1265. And 

“[w]e are bound by [our] prior panel decisions unless and until we overrule them 

while sitting en banc, or they are overruled by the Supreme Court.” United States 

v. Jordan, 635 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). In other words, “[w]e are

authorized to depart from a prior panel decision based upon an intervening 

Supreme Court decision only if that decision actually overruled or conflicted with 

it.” United States v. Marte, 356 F.3d 1336, 1344 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Swaby relies on Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 128 S. Ct. 1581

(2008), Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), and 

McFadden v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) for the 

proposition that Smith has been overruled. However we are not convinced that 

those cases overrule or conflict with Smith. Therefore, because no Supreme Court 

or en banc decision has overruled the holding from Smith, the prior panel precedent 

rule bounds us to that holding. See Marte, 356 F.3d at 1344. We affirm Swaby’s 

sentence.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-17780 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 Page: 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charazz Kevin MORAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7543.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Charazz Kevin Moran, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charazz Kevin Moran seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moran has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel and a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*