alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory Scott COVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-40733

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 19, 2014.

Allen Harvey Hurst, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*314John Andrew Kuchera, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gregory Scott Covey has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Covey has filed a response.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Covey’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Covey’s contention that his guilty plea was coerced. *See United States v. Corbett,*742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir.1984). We therefore decline to consider these claims without prejudice to Covey’s right, if any, to seek collateral review. *See Isgar,*739 F.3d at 841; *Corbett,*742 F.2d at 178 n. 11.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Covey’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before March 23, 2001 to be assured of consideration. 

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1455.                 

*Regulation Project Number:*                     PS-80-93 Final.                 

*Type of Review:*                     Extension.                 

*Title:*                     Rules for Certain Rental Real Estate Activities.                 

*Description:*                     The regulation provides rules relating to the treatment of rental real estate activities of certain taxpayers under the passive activity loss and credit limitations of Internal Revenue Code section 469.                 

*Respondents:*                     Individuals or households, Business or other for-profit.                

*Estimated Number of Respondents:*                     20,100.                 

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:*                     9 minutes.                 

*Frequency of Response:*                     On occasion.                 

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                     3,015 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.                 

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                

Lois K. Holland, 

Departmental Reports, Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 01-4180 Filed 2-20-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-1028-001]

Take notice that on February 9, 2001, Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) filed to amend its January 22, 2001 filing in the above referenced proceeding to withdraw the long-term firm point-to-point transmission service agreement with Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. (DYPM) which ComEd had designated as Original Service Agreement No. 494 (DYPM Agreement). ComEd is withdrawing the DYPM Agreement because, at the time it was filed, the DYPM Agreement had already been superseded by a subsequent set of transactions requested and confirmed by DYPM.

A copy of this filing is being mailed to each person or company named on the Commission's service list in the above-captioned proceeding. ComEd has also mailed a copy of this filing to DYPM.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before March 2, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the                           ( print page 11160)                        Internet at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-4347  Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Interstate Bakeries Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarter ended August 21, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:October 6, 2006       /s/ Ronald B. Hutchison     Ronald B. Hutchison    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, thiscertification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in anyregistration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
#### Constantin PISTALU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 30, 2010.

Constantin Pistalu, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Oil, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ins & Naturalization Service, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Constantin Pistalu, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual determinations, *Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*345 F.3d 824, 832 (9th Cir.2003), and review de novo due process claims, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pistalu was inadmissible for having willfully misrepresented a material fact regarding the nature of his first marriage to a United States citizen in order to obtain an immigration benefit. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); *Nakamoto v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 874, 882-83 (9th Cir.2004).

Pistalu’s due process claim fails because he did not request a continuance at his last hearing. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for due process claim).

Pistalu’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Al DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale MA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-55361.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 8, 2014.*

Filed April 11, 2014.

Glenn A. Murphy, Esquire, Litigation & Advocacy Group, Moorpark, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Courtney Myron Coates, Esquire, Courtney M. Coates Law Offices, Temecu-la, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: THOMAS, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Al Davis entered a Burger King restaurant with a 13-week-old puppy and was denied service under the restaurant’s “no dogs” policy. Alleging that he is disabled and that he was training the puppy to be a service animal, Davis filed a complaint making claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that Davis had not raised a genuine issue *489of material fact about whether the puppy was a service animal, or whether a service animal could help ameliorate his disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Both California and federal law require a showing that an individual’s disability can be ameliorated by a particular service animal. *See*28 C.F.R. § 36.104; Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(b)(6)(C)(iii). In its order granting summary judgment, the district court found that Davis failed to raise a triable issue of fact about whether a service dog could ameliorate his disability. On appeal, Davis does not argue the district erred by finding he failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that his disability is capable of being ameliorated by a service dog. Davis has thus waived any objection to this finding, *see Indep. Towers of Wash, v. Wash.,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003), and he cannot prevail on his disability discrimination claims.

Davis also argues the district court erred by dismissing his claims for racial discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although Davis stated in his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress that “[discrimination against disabled minorities ... is unusually damaging ... when the discrimination is against a person of African-American heritage,” the complaint did not make an independent claim for racial discrimination. Neither did the district court err by granting summary judgment on Davis’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This claim was based on Davis’ underlying claims of disability discrimination, and he failed to show that the defendants engaged in “extreme or outrageous conduct” by enforcing its “no dogs” policy. *See Hughes v. Pair,*46 Cal.4th 1035, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (2009) (laying out elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel M. Gottlieb, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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.
# FSFL Payment Deferral Estimates

# Tool Information
Conservation Loan

Program

Overview

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) Farm Service Agency 

(FSA) guarantees loans to promote 

conservation practices on farms and 

ranches that help protect natural 

resources throughout the United States.

FSA’s Conservation Loans are available

to both smaller and less financially 

established farmers and ranchers 

and to larger and financially stronger 

farmers and ranchers. The family farm 

and test for credit requirements are not 

applicable to Conservation Loans. 

Conservation Loan 

Program and NRCS

FSA Conservation Loans are for 

implementing conservation practices 

approved by the USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), such as:

• Reducing soil erosion;

• Improving water quality; and

• Promoting sustainable and 

organic agricultural practices.

Specific conservation practices include:

• Installing conservation structures;

• Establishing forest cover;

• Installing water conservation 

measures;

• Establishing or improving 

permanent pastures;

• Transitioning to organic production;

• Managing manure, including 

manure digestion systems; and

• Adapting other emerging or 

existing conservation practices, 

techniques or technologies.

If you do not already have a NRCS

Approved conservation plan, contact

your local NRCS staff to develop one

for your farm or ranch. Conservation 

plans must be approved by NRCS 

before FSA can provide financing.

Rates and Terms

Farmers and ranchers can apply for

guaranteed Conservation Loans 

from approved FSA lenders. 

FSA guarantees Conservation Loans 

with loan limits up to $2,236,000.

Conservation loans are available as 

guaranteed loans only. Interest rates 

on guaranteed Conservation Loans 

are negotiated between the lender 

and the borrower.

Terms vary based on the life of the

security offered, but not to exceed 

30 years. Conservation Loans must 

be fully secured and can only be 

approved for those who have the 

ability to repay them.

Streamlined 

Application

Some farmers and 

ranchers may be eligible 

to apply through a 

streamlined application 

process with reduced 

paperwork.

Applicants with a debtto-asset ratio of 40 

percent or less, have a 

minimum FICO score 

of 700, and have a net 

worth of at least three 

times the loan amount 

can use the streamlined 

application process. 

All applicants must be 

current on payments to 

all creditors.

More Information

For more information 

visit, fsa.usda.gov/farm 

loans or farmers.gov. 

Find your local USDA 

Service Center at 

farmers.gov/servicelocator.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. OCTOBER 2023
| | EXHIBIT 32.1 | 
| | ------------ | 

|
|

| | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350 | 
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

|In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diamond I, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), I, David Loflin, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code),
that:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(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.

|
|

|Dated: May 23, 2005. | /s/ DAVID LOFLIN | 
|-------------------- | ---------------- | 

| | David Loflin President | 
| | ---------------------- |
Exhibit 32.1

EVERGREEN ENERGY INC.

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

I,
Thomas H. Stoner, Jr., state and attest that:

/s/ THOMAS H. STONER, JR. Thomas H. Stoner, Jr.
Title:President & Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 31, 2010


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

---



QuickLinks
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.L.H., a child, * From the County Court at Law

 of Brown County,

 Trial Court No. CV1411455.

No. 11-19-00003-CV * April 9, 2020

 * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher, J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

 sitting by assignment) 

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
                            SOLA INTERNATIONAL INC.

                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Year Ended March 31,
                                                                     -------------------------------------------
                                                                     2000               1999              1998
                                                                     ----               ----              ----
<S>                                                                  <C>              <C>               <C>
Fixed charges:
 Interest expense...........................................         $20,282          $18,015           $16,988
 Interest capitalized during period.........................              --              167               666
 Amortization of financing costs............................             478              457               429
 Interest portion of rental expense.........................           2,605            2,391             2,607
                                                                     -------          -------           -------
Total fixed charges.........................................         $23,365          $21,030           $20,690
                                                                     =======          =======           =======

Earnings:
 Income from continuing operations before
   income taxes.............................................         $ 1,065          $20,192           $75,952

Fixed charges per above.....................................          23,365           21,030            20,690
Less interest capitalized during the period.................              --             (167)             (666)
Current period amortization of interest capitalized
   in prior periods.........................................              60               27                --
                                                                     -------          -------           -------

Earnings as adjusted........................................         $24,490          $41,082           $95,976
                                                                     =======          =======           =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................            1.05             1.95              4.64
                                                                     =======          =======           =======
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2





CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors


Gart Sports Company:





We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements Nos.
333-43997 and 333-87013 on Form S-8 of Gart Sports Company of our report dated March 14, 2000, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows of Gart Sports Company
and subsidiaries for the 52 weeks ended January 29, 2000, which report appears in the February 2, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Gart Sports Company.





KPMG LLP





Denver, Colorado


April 16, 2002