alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Marcus GARNER, Appellant.

No. 06-2406.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) March 29, 2007.

Filed: April 18, 2007.

William A. Behe, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.

L. Rex Biekley, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellant.

Before: RENDELL, BARRY, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION OF THE COURT*

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

Counsel for Marcus Garner petitions this Court for permission to withdraw from representation of Garner pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). For the reasons that follow, we will grant the motion and affirm Garner’s conviction and sentence.

On October 12, 2005, a grand jury returned a two-count indictment charging Garner with interstate travel in aid of racketeering and possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), respectively. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Garner pled guilty to the racketeering charge on December 12, 2005. In exchange for Garner’s plea of guilty, the Government agreed to dismiss the drug possession charge, and to recommend a two-level reduction in Garner’s offense level, which it did.

Thereafter, the District Court commissioned the preparation of a Presentence Report (PSR). The PSR determined that Garner’s total offense level was 26, and his criminal history was category IV, which corresponded to a Guideline range of 92-115 months. Because the statutory maximum Garner could receive was 60 months, his actual exposure was substantially less *142than his Guideline range would indicate. Garner made no objections to the PSR.

On April 13, 2006, the District Court sentenced Garner to 60 months imprisonment. This appeal ensued.1

The *Anders*brief submitted to this Court demonstrates that Garner’s attorney has “thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues,” and has explained why any issues arguably supporting the appeal are frivolous. *United States v. Youla,*241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir.2001). Moreover, an independent review of “those portions of the record identified by [the] *Anders*brief’ reveals no non-frivolous issues Garner might profitably raise on appeal. *Id.*at 301. Accordingly, we will grant the *Anders*motion and affirm Garner’s conviction and sentence without appointing new counsel. *See*3d Cir. L.A.R. 109.2.

1

. Because Garner has not filed a pro se brief, we do not know what error he assigns to the District Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2823 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2823

   To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on leucovorin calcium 
                                powder.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on leucovorin calcium 
                                powder.

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

SECTION 1. LEUCOVORIN CALCIUM POWDER.

    Heading 9902.31.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended to read as follows:

      

       ``  9902.31.00  leucovorin calcium (provided for in subheading                              No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        2936.29.20).............................................  Free                                                31/96           ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

s1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145305

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145305

COA: 303721

Genesee CC: 10

- 027141

- FC

JOSEPHUS ATCHISON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
(YOUR COMPANY LETTERHEAD)
 

TENANT RELEASE AND CONSENT
 

I/We _____________________________________________________, the undersigned hereby 

authorize 

_______________________________________________________, to release without liability, 

information 

(employer or other source) 

regarding my/our employment, income, and/or assets to ______________________________________, 

(owner or agent) 

for purposes of verifying information provided as part of my/our apartment rental application. 

INFORMATION COVERED 

I/We understand that previous or current information regarding me/us may be needed. Verifications and 

inquiries that may be requested include, but are not limited to: personal identity; employment, income, and assets; 

medical or child care allowances. I/We understand that this authorization cannot be used to obtain any information 

about me/us that is not pertinent to my eligibility for and continued participation as a Qualified Tenant. 

GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY BE ASKED 

The groups or individuals that may be asked to release the above information include, but are not limited 

to: 

Past and Present Employers Welfare Agencies Veterans Administration 

Previous Landlords (including State Unemployment Agencies Retirement Systems 

Public Housing Agencies) Social Security Administration Banks and other Financial 

Support and Alimony Providers Medical and Child Care Providers Institutions 

B-1
 

 

_______________________________ 

_______________________________ 

_______________________________ 

_______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

______________________________ 

_____________________________ 

_____________________________ 

_____________________________ 

_____________________________ 

CONDITIONS 

I/We agree that a photocopy of this authorization may be used for the purposes stated above. The original 

of this authorization is on file and will stay in effect for a year and one month from the date signed. I/We 

understand I/we have a right to review this file and correct any information that I/we can prove is incorrect. 

SIGNATURES 

Head of Household 

Spouse 

Adult Member 

Adult Member 

(Print Name) 

(Print Name) 

(Print Name) 

(Print Name) 

Date 

Date 

Date 

Date 

NOTE: THIS GENERAL CONSENT MAY NOT BE USED TO REQUEST A COPY OF A TAX RETURN. IF A 

COPY OF A TAX RETURN IS NEEDED, IRS FORM 4506, "REQUEST FOR COPY OF TAX FORM" MUST BE 

PREPARED AND SIGNED SEPARATELY. 

B-2
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

    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 GBC Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry D. Key,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John Hopkins, Chief 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:

         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 Company.

                             /s/  Larry D. Key
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Larry D. Key, President and C.E.O.
                             (Principal Executive Officer)

                             /s/ John Hopkins
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             John Hopkins, C.F.O.
                             (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

August 12, 2003
THIRD ~~FOURTH~~ AMENDMENT TO

CNG NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS' FEE PLAN

 

The CNG Nonemployee Directors' Fee Plan, as amended andrestated effective October 1, 1996, and as subsequently amended by the First,Second and Third Amendments thereto (the "Plan"), is hereby further amended asfollows effective as of November 30, 1999:

1.	By deleting the last sentence of subparagraph (a) ofparagraph 4 of the Plan and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"By written notice to the Secretary of the Company, aDirector may change from time to time his or her election(s) as to the terms andconditions of payment of deferred fees to extend the time for receiving paymentand/or change the form of payment, except that (i) no election change shall beeffective under the Plan unless it is filed with the Secretary at least one yearprior to the date payment would have been made to the Director hereunder if theDirector had not made such election change, and (ii) a Director may change thetime for receiving payment only once.  Unless the Company, in its solediscretion, decides to commence payment in a different manner, a Directors'deferred fees shall be paid in accordance with the Director's last writtenelection(s) as to the terms and conditions of payment, or changes therein, thatare in effect under the Plan."

2.	By adding a new subparagraph (d) after subparagraph (c)of paragraph 4 of the Plan as follows:

"(d)	Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, thedistribution of all or any portion of a Director's deferred fees will be delayedfor a period not to exceed seven months or may be subject to prior approval bythe Compensation Committee (the "Committee") of the Board of Directors of CTGResources, Inc. or any successor thereto ("CTG") or by the Board of Directors ofCTG to the extent that the Company determines that such delay or approval isnecessary or desirable to ensure that any transaction under the Plan willqualify for an exemption from the liability provisions imposed on the Directorunder Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or anyrules and regulations issued thereunder.  In the event of any such delay, theundistributed deferred fees shall continue to be subject to investmentadjustment as provided in paragraph 3 until distribution is made."

3.	Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Plan,as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Connecticut Natural Gas Corporationhereby executes this Fourth Amendment this 14th day of December, 1999.

 

Witness:					CONNECTICUT NATURAL GASCORPORATION

 

Jean S.McCarthy
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William McCOY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-2134.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 9, 2007.

Filed: April 17, 2007.

Ann M. Koszuth, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Con*505rad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

James J. Kelleher, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO (Bradley J. Sehlozman, U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William McCoy pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Finding that McCoy qualified for the sentence enhancement provided in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the district court1 sentenced him to 188 months in prison. *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (defendant who violates § 922(g)(1) and has 3 prior convictions for violent felonies is subject to 15-year minimum sentence). On appeal, McCoy challenges the sentence enhancement under the ACCA, arguing that the court erred in finding that his two tampering convictions in Missouri were separate criminal episodes and violent felonies.

We review a district court’s factual interpretations for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. *See United States v. Turner,*431 F.3d 332, 337 (8th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2345, 164 L.Ed.2d 859 (2006). “To qualify as predicate offenses under the [ACCA], each conviction must be a separate and distinct criminal episode, rather than part of a continuous course of conduct.” *United States v. Deroo,*304 F.3d 824, 828 (8th Cir.2002). Although McCoy’s tampering convictions involved the same victim (Springfield Auto Auction), we conclude that the underlying criminal activity — cutting a hole in a parking lot fence, stealing a car, and abandoning it, then returning the next day through the same hole in the fence and stealing a truck— amounted to two discrete criminal episodes. *Cf. United States v. Washington,*898 F.2d 439, 442 (5th Cir.1990) (two robberies committed against same convenience-store clerk within hours were separate criminal episodes, and not crime spree). We further conclude that McCoy’s convictions for tampering constitute violent felonies under section 924(e). *See United States v. Adams,*442 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir.2006) (under controlling precedent, Missouri conviction for tampering with motor vehicle by operation qualifies as violent felony within meaning of § 924(e)), *petition for cert, filed,*(U.S. Sept. 13, 2006) (No. 06-6541); *United States v. Johnson,*417 F.3d 990, 999 (8th Cir.2005).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 4.114


English Translation of Chinese Language Document





Agreement





No.:     Q722010





Party A: China Electric Equipment Group Co., Ltd.


Party B: China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.


Party C: CEEG (Nanjing) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.





Hereinafter referred to as Party A, Party B and Party C.





The parties, through friendly consultation, agree to transfer due credit and debt thereof as follows:





1.
Party A shall transfer to Party C its cerdit to Party B in an amount of RMB3,352,732.


2.
Party C shall offset its debt to Party B with all the transferred credit from Party A.


3.
The difference remained between Party C and Party B shall be settled through negotiation between both parties.





This agreement is executed in triplicate and shall be deemed as accounting voucher of the parties.





Party A: China Electric Equipment Group Co., Ltd.


(seal)


2010-01-14





Party B: China Sunergy (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.


(seal)


2010-01-14





Party C: CEEG (Nanjing) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.


(seal)


2010-01-14
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATIONS OFCEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

I, Tom W. Olofson, ChiefExecutive Officer of EPIQ Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifypursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, andSection 906 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to which thisExhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Tom W. Olofson |           |
|--------------------|----------------|
| Tom W. Olofson     |           |
|               |           |
| Dated:             | August 8, 2006 |
|                    |                |  |

 

 

 

I, Elizabeth M.Braham, Chief Financial Officer of EPIQ Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode, and Section 906 of the Sarbanes — Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to whichthis Exhibit is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Elizabeth M. Braham |           |   |
|-------------------------|----------------|--------|
| Elizabeth M. Braham     |           |   |
|                    |           |   |
| Dated:                  | August 8, 2006 |   |
|                         |                |        |  |

 

 

1

----
#### Powell *v.*Oliver *et al.*

Argued May 6,

Decided May 24, 1901.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Sheffield. • ■ Randolph superior court. January 15, 1901.

*Arthur Gray Powell,*for plaintiff.

*W. D. Kiddoo, A. Hood,*and *W. G. Worrill,*for defendants.

Lumpkin, P. J.

This case turned upon questions of fact which weré fairly submitted to the jury ; none of the instructions given by the court were open to the criticism that there was no evidence upon which to base the same; and the verdict was fully warranted.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned office of New Visual Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify
that to such officer's knowledge:

(1)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the period
         ended July 31, 2005 (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.

This certification is made solely for the purposes of U.S.C. ss. 1350, and not
for any other purpose.

February 10, 2006



/S/ BRAD KETCH
---------------------------
BRAD KETCH
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (AND PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
Exhibit 31(b)
 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
      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 annual report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    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
 d)
    
    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 the annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  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.
  /s/ Herman F. Dick, Jr.Herman F. Dick, Jr.Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1    August 26, 2008  Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. 500 West Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60661  Ladies and Gentlemen:  We hereby consent to the use of our name and PhoCusWrights U.S. Online
Travel Overview Seventh Edition report for use in the Annual Report on Form
10-K/A for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007 of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.   PhoCusWright, Inc.By:
  /s/ Lorraine SileoName:
  Lorraine SileoTitle:
  Vice President, Research  PhoCusWright Inc.·1 Route 37 East, Suite 200·Sherman, CT 06784-1430 USA·+1 860 350-4084·f: +1 860 354-3112·phocuswright.com