alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60639

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES NORRIS WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIMMY MCGUIRE;

HERMAN COX,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:96-CV-90-Br-R

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Norris Walker, Mississippi state prisoner #76462, has

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The

motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. Although Walker is unable to

pay the initial financial filing fee, the agency having custody

of Walker is directed to forward payments from his account to the
No. 96-60639

- 2 -

clerk of the district court each time the amount in Walker’s

account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

Walker argues that the district court abused its discretion

in dismissing his complaint as frivolous because his counsel

conspired with state officials to deprive Walker of his

constitutional rights by testifying against Walker at his

criminal trial.

The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous

pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994) because it

determined that Walker’s allegations called into question the

validity of Walker’s conviction. We have reviewed the record and

have determined that Walker’s limited allegations do not

demonstrate whether Walker was convicted at the trial during

which counsel testified or, if so, whether Walker is presently

incarcerated as a result of such conviction. 

Walker’s allegations that his counsel conspired with state

actors to deprive him of a constitutional right are not totally

baseless or delusional. The district court abused its discretion

in dismissing Walker’s complaint as frivolous at this stage of

the proceeding. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33

(1992). We intimate no view as to the ultimate merits of this

claim. We hold merely that on the record before us we cannot

conclude that this claim has no arguable basis either in law or

in fact. The district court’s judgment is VACATED and the case
No. 96-60639

- 3 -

is REMANDED for further development of Walker’s claims consistent

with this opinion.

IFP GRANTED; VACATE AND REMAND.
120 STAT. 2910 PUBLIC LAW 109–425—DEC. 20, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4057 (S. 1876):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–390 (Comm. on Government Reform).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Mar. 28, considered and passed House.

Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–425

109th Congress

An Act

To provide that attorneys employed by the Department of Justice shall be eligible

for compensatory time off for travel under section 5550b of title 5, United States

Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMPENSATORY TIME OFF FOR TRAVEL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Attorneys employed by the Department of

Justice (including assistant United States attorneys) shall be

eligible for compensatory time off for travel under section 5550b

of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any provision

of section 115 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,

the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (as

enacted into law by section 1000(a)(1) of Public Law 106–113 and

reenacted by section 111 of the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted into law by appendix B of Public Law

106–553)).

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to

time spent in travel status on or after the date of the enactment

of this Act.

Approved December 20, 2006.

5 USC 5550b

note.

Dec. 20, 2006

[H.R. 4057]
II

Calendar No. 305

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1211

[Report No. 106–175]

To amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of salinity upstream of Imperial

Dam in a cost-effective manner.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. ALLARD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. KYL, Mr.

THOMAS, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, with an amendment

[Insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act

to authorize additional measures to carry out the control

of salinity upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective

manner.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1211 RS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

2 SALINITY CONTROL ACT.

3 Section 208(c) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity

4 Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1598(c)) is amended—

5 (1) in the first sentence—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘$75,000,000 for sub7 section 202(a)’’ and inserting ‘‘$175,000,000

8 for section 202(a)’’; and

9 (B) by striking ‘‘paragraph 202(a)(6)’’ and

10 inserting ‘‘paragraph (6) of section 202(a)’’;

11 and

12 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘para13 graph 202(a)(6)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 202(a)(6)’’.

14 SEC. 2. REPORT.

15 The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report

16 on the status of implementation of the comprehensive pro17 gram for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado

18 River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Man19 agement directed by section 203(b)(3) of the Colorado River

20 Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1593). The report

21 shall provide specific information on individual projects

22 and funding allocation. The report shall be transmitted to

23 the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the

24 Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives no

25 later than June 30, 2000.

Calendar No. 305

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1211

[Report No. 106–175]

A BILL

To amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to authorize additional measures to carry

out the control of salinity upstream of ImperialDam in a cost-effective manner.

OCTOBER 6, 1999

Reported with an amendment
59–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–25 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 556—NATIONAL SECURITY FOREIGN INVESTMENT REFORM AND STRENGTHENED TRANSPARENCY ACT 

OF 2007 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 195] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 195 by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 556, the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened 

Transparency Act of 2007, under an open rule with a preprinting 

requirement. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally 

divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. 

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 

bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule 

makes in order the Committee on Financial Services amendment in 

the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill 

for the purpose of amendment. The amendment in the nature of a 

substitute shall be considered for amendment by section with each 

section considered as read. The rule provides that notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 

printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 

that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may 

be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his 

designee and shall be considered as read. The rule provides one 

motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration 

of the bill (except for clauses 9 or 10 of Rule XXI), the Committee 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
2 

is not aware of any points of order against consideration of the bill. 

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

is prophylactic in nature. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with HEARING
#### ELECTRIC SOUTH, INC. v. LEWIS

No. 547P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 160

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 May 1990.
#### Minnie Ball Thaw, Respondent, v. Edward B. Thaw, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 10 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ROY HENNEGEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DUANE TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1547

(D.C. No. 96-Z-1602)

(Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Plaintiff Roy Hennegen filed a lawsuit in state court against Duane Taylor,

the branch manager for Alternative Resources Corporation, claiming that Mr.

Taylor underpaid Mr. Hennegen in the amount of $21,994.45 for work performed

by Mr. Hennegen. Mr. Taylor removed the case to federal court on the grounds

that Mr. Hennegen was actually complaining about federal and state taxes since

the amount withheld from his salary constituted federal and state income taxes

and social security required to be withheld by federal and state law. Mr.

Hennegen appeals the district court’s grant of Mr. Taylor’s Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings and for Sanctions. We affirm.

Mr. Hennegen contends on appeal that he is not a federal government

employee as required by the definition of “employee” in the Internal Revenue

Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c). Unfortunately for him, all employees, not just

employees of the federal government, are required to submit to federal tax

withholding. See United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985)

(contention that “under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not

include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the

statute.”). We agree with the district court, substantially for the reasons stated in

its Order of Dismissal that “[t]his lawsuit is simply a disturbing effort to

undermine our nation’s tax system.” Rec., vol I, tab 21 at 2. Consequently, we

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court, including the award of sanctions.
-3-

Mr. Taylor requests that we grant sanctions on appeal on the grounds this

appeal is frivolous and vexatious. We grant the motion and award Mr. Taylor

double costs and attorney’s fees as a sanction. See Lonsdale v United States, 919

F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990). We REMAND to the district court for a

determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees expended by Mr. Taylor

for defending this appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
#### Eileen Coveney *v.*Anthony Nicoletti

*David Silverslone,*in support of the petition.

Submitted April 29

decided May 8, 1974

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is granted.
Skip Links

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Fact Sheet 2006-3140

Pubs Warehouse

### World Assessment of Oil and Gas Fact Sheet

## U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Undiscovered Petroleum Resources of the Hamra Basin, Libya, 2006

| *FS 2006-3140* PDF (673 kB)                    Right-Click to 'Save As' or 'Download'*FS 2006-3140* PDF (673 kB)                  Right-Click to 'Save As' or 'Download'
The Hamra Basin Province encompasses approximately 244,100 square kilometers (94,250 square miles) and is entirely within Libya.  One composite total petroleum system (TPS) was defined for this assessment; it extends from Libya westward into adjacent parts of Algeria and southern Tunisia.  The Hamra Basin part of the TPS was subdivided into four assessment units for the purpose of resource assessment.  The assessment units cover only 172,390 square kilometers of the Hamra Basin Province; the remaining area has little potential for undiscovered petroleum resources because of the absence of petroleum source rocks.

Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean volumes of 784 million barrels of crude oil, 4,748 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and 381 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Hamra Basin of northwestern Libya.  Most of the undiscovered crude oil and natural gas are interpreted to be in deeper parts of the Hamra Basin.

  | Version 1.0

Posted January 2007
-  **Fact Sheet** PDF (673 kB) |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

----

Download the latest version of Acrobat Reader, free of charge
access.adobe.com
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BOBBY RODRIGUEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-50545

D.C. No. 3:04-cr-03002-DMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 15, 2016** 

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Bobby Rodriguez appeals from the nine-month sentence imposed upon his

third revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rodriguez contends that the district court impermissibly delegated its

judicial authority when it rejected his request for outpatient drug treatment and

deferred to the probation officer’s recommendation that Rodriguez either serve a

short sentence followed by inpatient drug treatment or a longer terminal sentence. 

The case upon which Rodriguez relies, United States v. Esparza, 552 F.3d 1088

(9th Cir. 2009), is inapposite. Unlike in that case, the district court here did not

impose a condition of supervised release granting the probation officer the

authority to decide whether Rodriguez would participate in inpatient or outpatient

drug treatment. Rather, the record shows that the court simply listened to the

parties’ arguments, found probation’s recommendation against outpatient treatment

persuasive, and imposed a terminal sentence in light of Rodriguez’s unwillingness

to participate in inpatient treatment. The district court did not err. 

AFFIRMED.

2 15-50545
Exhibit 4.35

Summary in English of the Grupo Cable TV Share Purchase Agreement

The following are the main terms and conditions pursuant to which Tenedora Ares, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Tenedora Ares) and San Ángel
Telecom, S.A. de C.V., acquired common shares representing 49% of the capital stock of Grupo Cable TV, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo Cable).



|                 |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|PARTIES          |  | Sellers: Dafel Investments B.V., Mexico Media Investments, S.L., Sociedad Unipersonal and Cable TV Investments, S.L., Sociedad
Unipersonal  Buyers: Tenedora Ares, S.A.P.I. de C.V. and San Ángel Telecom,
S.A. de C.V.
|                 | 
|DATE             |  | August 13, 2014                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|                 | 
|PURCHASED SHARES |  | The Sellers sold and transferred to the Buyers, and the Buyers purchased and acquired from the Sellers, common shares representing 49% of Grupo Cables capital stock.                                                 
|                 | 
|PURCHASE PRICE   |  | Ps.8,550,000,000.00                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                 | 
|JURISDICTION     |  | Mexican federal courts sitting in Mexico City.                                                                                                                                                                         
|                 | 
|GOVERNING LAW    |  | The parties submitted to the applicable federal laws of Mexico.
To: FAA Section 333 Exemptions

From: Colin Read, Commercial Pilot, CFI, IA

Date: October 15, 2015

Re: Petition for Section 333 exemption

I, Colin Read, request an exemption under the provisions of Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 to allow commercial

operations of unmanned aircraft for precision aerial survey. I intend to conform to the 

following provisions: 14 C.F.R. 21, 14 C.F.R. 45.23, 29, 14 C.F.R. 61.3, 61.113(a)&(b), 

14 C.F.R. 61.133(a)&(b), 14 C.F.R. 91.7(b,), 119, 121, 151(a), 91.203(a)&(b), and 14 

CFR Subpart E 91.40 1 - 91.417. 

I intend to fly a UAV model DJI Phantom 3 in accordance with all prevailing and future 

flight rules and in VFR conditions only. The aircraft has a range of 22 minutes, weights 

under 3 lbs., and a maximum speed of 22 mph. It will not be operated beyond line of 

sight, nor above 100 feet. 

I hold a commercial pilot’s license, with multi engine and instrument ratings, and a 

CFI-I. In addition, I am an A&P mechanic with Inspection Authorization. I shall fly and 

maintain this unmanned aerial vehicle in accordance with the regulations that govern 

civil flights. In accordance with the new proposed FAA regulation released February of 

2015, I shall operate within the most restrictive proposal required to operate an 

unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS).

I intend to operate the UAV to conduct surveys of my vineyard and inspections of real 

estate and civic properties, under the permission of authorized jurisdictions. I shall do 

so as a service to my vineyard for the purposes of crop management, as a service to 

those who must inspect or photograph real estate, including for the purposes of 

maintenance in a manner safer than normally required for rooftop inspections, and as a 

pro bono service to local governments or economic development organizations. In 

addition, I shall use the exemption to allow real estate owners to better survey their 

property for the purpose of solar installations. With respect to this latter purpose, I have 

installed a number of solar installation and am qualified to stand for examination as a 

commercial solar panel installer as sanctioned by the North American Board of Certified 

Energy Practitioners. 

I am also committed to act as an ambassador in the creation of a positive image for 

responsible users of this new technology. 

Note: In accordance with § 11.63 (d), I respectfully propose an effective date on or before 

February 12, 2016.

Sincerely,

Colin Read

81 Blair Road

Plattsburgh, NY, 12901
# C_2007042EN.01004802.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/48

---

Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Collée v Parliament

(Case F-148/06)

(2007/C 42/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laurent Collée (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | declare the illegality of paragraph I.3 of the ‘Instructions on the procedure for the allocation of promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 13 June 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the illegality of paragraph I.3 of the ‘Instructions on the procedure for the allocation of promotion points’ of the European Parliament of 13 June 2002;

| — | annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 9 January 2006 to allocate two merit points to the applicant under the 2004 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 9 January 2006 to allocate two merit points to the applicant under the 2004 promotion procedure;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a European Parliament official in Grade AST 8, criticises the Appointing Authority for failing to carry out an examination of comparative merits which included all officials of the institution who were eligible for promotion and were classified in the same grade as the applicant. He alleges, inter alia, breach of Articles 5 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The contested decision, he argues, is also vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a failure to give reasons.

The applicant pleads, lastly, that paragraph I.3 of the abovementioned Instructions, which concerns the exceptional allocation of promotion points by the Secretary-General, is illegal. In particular, the restrictions imposed by that provision on the Secretary-General do not comply with Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment.

---