alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis Appelbaum, Appellant, v. Frieda Appelbaum, Respondent.

Order entered March 24, 1948, fixing counsel fee upon appeal from order granting examination of plaintiff before trial, modified on the facts by reducing the counsel fee from $250 to $150. As thus modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. No Lewis, P. Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
### §822. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–281, §1(b)(2), May 15, 1978, 92 Stat. 246

Section, act Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 881, §2, 70 Stat. 937, related to removal of restrictions on sales or encumbrances and nature of title passed.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: February 5, 2015 1 05576

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRACY G. VIERRA, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: December 2, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ.

__________ Jon Kosich, Greenville, for appellant, and appellant pro se. D. Holly Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered November 9, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of seven years, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record, defense counsel's brief and defendant's pro se-2- 105576

submissions, we agree. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and counsel's application for leave to withdraw is granted (see People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]; see generally People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633 [2001]). Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 3486.1 Inspections. ( a ) The operator/lessee shall provide access, at all reasonable times, to the authorized officer for inspection or investigation of operations in order to determine whether the operations are in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and orders; the terms and conditions of the Federal lease or license; and requirements of any approved exploration plan for: ( 1 ) Abandonment.
( 2 ) Environmental protection and reclamation practices.
( b ) The operator/lessee shall provide access, at all reasonable times, to the authorized officer for inspection or investigation of operations in order to determine whether the operations are in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and orders; the terms and conditions of the Federal lease or license; and requirements of any approved resource recovery and protection plan for: ( 1 ) Production practices.
( 2 ) Development.
( 3 ) Resource recovery and protection.
( 4 ) Diligent development and continued operation.
( 5 ) Audits of Federal rental and royalty payments on producing Federal leases.
( 6 ) Abandonment.
( 7 ) MER determinations.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ANTONIO CASARES

- CUEVAS, AKA Roberto Mendoza, AKA Fernando, AKA Tony,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 3673
D.C. No. 3:12

- cr

- 00038

- LRH

- VPC

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks
, District Judge , Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024 **

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges

.
Antonio Casares

- Cuevas appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JUN 6 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 3673

Casares

- Cuevas argue s that , contrary to the district court’s conclusion, he

exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the instant motion

. We need

not decide this issue because, even if Casares

- Cuevas had exhausted
, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief

. See United States v. Keller , 2

F.4th 1278, 128 1

- 82 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and holding that

exhaustion is not jurisdictional)

. First, as the district court explained, the law concerning methamphetamine

offenses has not changed since Casares

- Cuevas’s sentencing , and he failed to show
that his sentence is unfairly disparate to sentences received by similarly situated

defendants . Second, the district court reasonably found

— and Casares

- Cuevas does
not challenge

— that release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors , including the serio usness of Casares

- Cuevas’s offense and the safety of the

community

. See United States v. Wright
, 46 F.4th 938, 947

- 48 (9th Cir. 2022 )

(district court may deny compassionate release under the § 3553(a) factors alone ).

We do not consider Casares

- Cuevas’s argument regarding his eligibility for

safety

- valve relief because it was not raised before the district court. See Padgett
v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 98 5 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
The government’s motion to strike the reply brief is denied

.
AFFIRMED.
#### § 3503.16 May I obtain permits or leases for sand and gravel in Nevada under the terms of this part?

You may not get new leases or permits under these regulations; BLM will consider any new applications for sand and gravel under the regulations at part 3600 of this chapter. Also, beginning January 1, 2000, BLM will not renew any existing sand and gravel lease for certain lands the United States received under an exchange with the State of Nevada.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

R od ri gu ez consent ed t o the j uri sdi ct i on of the m agi strat e j ud ge. ** T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OSI EL RODRI GU EZ , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J . K A R G E , C ap ta in ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15482 D . C. N o . 1 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 3 3 2 - G SA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G aryS . A us t i n, M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 *** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O siel R o d rig u ez , a fe d er al p riso n er , ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s a ct i on brou gh tun der B i ve ns v. Si x U nkno w n N

am ed A gent s of FederalB ureau o

f N arcot i cs , 403 U . S . 388 ( 1971) , a l l e gi ng 

# FI LED OC T 06 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15482 2 c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s a r is in g f r o m a n e le c tr o n ic w o r ds e ar c h o f h is d o c u m e n ts and r e l a t e d c l a i m s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de n o v o . B arr e n v . H

arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F .3 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . W e a f f irm . T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the F ourth A m e ndm e ntc l a i m a l l e gi ng th a t p r is o n o f

f ic ia ls im p r o p e r lyc o n du c te de le c tr o n ic w o r ds e ar c h e s o n d o c u m e n ts tha tR odr i gue z dr a f

t e d on as har e d w or d pr oc e s s orbe c aus e i nm a t e s ha ve no le g itim a te e x p e c ta tio n o f p r iv a c yin th e irp r is o n c e lls o rp o s s e s s io n s . Se e H uds on v. P alm er , 4 6 8 U .S . 5 1 7 , 5 2 5 - 2 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed the du e proces s c l ai m s bec ause R odr i gue z f

a i l e d t o a l l e ge f

a c t s s how i ng how hi s pl a c e m e nti n the S e c ur e H ous i ng U ni tortr ans f

e rt o the A dm i ni s tr a t i ve M a xi m um f a c i l i tyi m pos e d a n a typi c a l a nd s ig n if ic an t h ar d s h ip o n h im in r e la tio n to th e o r d in aryin c id e n ts o f p r is o n lif

e . See W ilkin s o n v . A u s tin , 545 U . S . 209, 223- 34 ( 2005) . F urthe r , “ i nm a t e s l a c k a s e p ar a te c o n s titu tio n a l e n title m e n t to as p e c ia l p r is o n g r ie v an c e p r o c e du r e .” R a m i rez v. G a la za , 33 4 F . 3d 85 0, 86 0 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). AF F I RME D.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4584 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

authorize COPS grantees to use grant funds for active shooter training, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

Mr. CARTER of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to authorize COPS grantees to use grant 

funds for active shooter training, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘POLICE Act of 2016’’. 

5 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED USE OF COPS FUNDS. 

6 Section 1701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

7 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)) is amend8 ed— 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4584 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (16), by striking ‘‘; and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(18) to participate in nationally-recognized ac7 tive shooter training programs that offer scenario8 based, integrated response courses designed to 

9 counter active shooter threats or acts of terrorism 

10 against individuals or facilities.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1


          Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Harry Chauhan,  President,  Chief Executive Officer,  Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of Atlantic Wine Agencies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended March 31,
2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as amended  (15 U.S.C.  78m or
78o(d)); and

(2) the  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: June 28, 2004



/s/ Harry Chauhan
----------------------
Harry Chauhan
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### The Morris Canal and Banking Company and others *vs.*The Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City and others.

1. The defendants, being about to build a pier and abutments on lands under water belonging to the complainants by grant from the state, without obtaining their consent, without compensation or tender for damages, and without taking proceedings for condemnation, were enjoined.

2. 'That the complainants hold the lands subject to the right of public navigation, does not deprive them of the right to the protection of this •court.

On motion to dissolve injunction, on bill and affidavits annexed thereto.

*Mr. W. P. Douglass*and *Mr. B. Williamson,*for the motion.

*Mr. T. N. McCarter,*contra.

The Chancellor.

The motion to dissolve the injunction must be denied. It appears by the bill, that the complainants have title derived from the state to the land under water, on which the abutments and middle pier of the proposed bridge are to be built. They have not consented to such use of the land. No compensation has been made or tendered to them for their damages, nor have any proceedings for condemnation been taken. On established principles, they are entitled to the protection of this court against such an invasion of their rights of property. • The fact that they hold the land subject to the right of public navigation, secured by the act of the legislature, by which their title was granted, is not sufficient ground for denying them that protection. Nor do they appear to have forfeited their claim to the consideration of this court by laches.
§ 2932.51 When can I renew my Special Recreation Permit? We will renew your Special Recreation Permit upon application at the end of its term only if— ( a ) It is in good standing;
( b ) Consistent with BLM management plans and policies; and
( c ) You and all of your affiliates have a satisfactory record of performance.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 659

 693

 710

 709

 712

 712

 702

 707

 720

 687

 690

 686

 642

 698

 692

 659

 597

 646

 681

 682

 700

 713

 707

 713

 719

 679

 615

 591

 616

 625

 672

 648

 613

 608

 619

 636

 634

 642

 599

 631

 605

 581

 644

 594

 548

 600

 634

 640

 643

 657

 675

 672

 673

 593

 539

 514

 639

 667

 694

 693

 686

 678

 678

 683

 691

 665

 632

 664

 630

 662

 667

 621

 574

 624

 657

 661

 671

 690

 691

 690

 698

 642

 593

 562

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 8, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 17,153

 17,253

 17,375

 17,510

 17,641

 17,770

 17,891

 18,018

 18,155

 18,257

 18,337

 18,427

 18,481

 18,594

 18,726

 18,787

 18,797

 18,855

 18,958

 19,040

 19,127

 19,243

 19,378

 19,525

 19,665

 19,734

 19,720

 19,658

 572

 575

 579

 584

 588

 592

 596

 601

 605

 609

 611

 614

 616

 620

 624

 626

 627

 629

 632

 635

 638

 641

 646

 651

 656

 658

 657

 655

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON A PPELLANT ’ S

M OTION FOR EN B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: James Tinsley, IV v

. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00296

- CR

Trial court case number: 146864 1

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 28, 2018

Party filing motion: Appellant , James Tinsley, IV

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/

__

Richard Hightower

__________________________________________ Acting Individually Acting for the Court

En banc court consists of: Chief Ju stice Radack, and Justices Keyes, Higley, Lloyd, Kelly,

Goodman, Landau, Hightower, and Countiss

Date: February 21, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT FEBRUARY 29, 2000, THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AT FEBRUARY 29, 2000, AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW AT FEBRUARY 29, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,147
<PP&E>                                         112,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,312
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,644
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,274
<SALES>                                         38,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,333
<CGS>                                           27,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,750
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 13, 2021 No. 04-20-00526-CV Patrick MINOR , Appellant

v. DIVERSE FACILITY SOLUTIONS ,

Appellee From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-00808 Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s brief was due on December 2, 2020. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. On December 23, 2020, this court notified appellant that his brief had not been filed and we directed him to respond within ten days with a reasonable explanation for his failure to file a brief. Appellant did not respond. We ORDER appellant to file, no later than January 22, 2021 , his appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining (1) his failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by January 22, 2021, his appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of January, 2021.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### Edgar Fernando Blanco PUERTA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL; Michael T. Shelby, United States Attorney (Southern District of Texas); Neil H. Adler, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-20154.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Edgar Fernando Blanco Puerta, Houston, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edgar Fernando Blanco Puerta, federal prisoner # 16259-179, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition without prejudice to Puerta’s seeking relief via the appropriate procedural vehicle. Although Puerta has briefed the merits of his claims, he has failed to address the procedural issue presented by the district court’s dismissal of his petition. Puerta has failed to brief the sole relevant issue for appeal. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). His appeal therefore is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### **Subchapter E—Abatement of First and Second Tier Taxes in Certain Cases**

Sec.
4961.
Abatement of second tier taxes where there is correction.
4962.
Abatement of first tier taxes in certain cases.
4963.
Definitions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–168, title XIII, §1311(a), July 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 1475, redesignated former subchapter D as E.

**1987**—Pub. L. 100–203, title X, §10712(a), (b)(5), Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–465, 1330–467, redesignated former subchapter C as D, and struck out "private foundation" before "first tier taxes" in item 4962.

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title III, §305(b)(1), (2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 783, substituted "Abatement of First and Second Tier Taxes in Certain Cases" for "Abatement of Second Tier Taxes Where There Is Correction During Correction Period" in the subchapter heading, added item 4962, and renumbered former item 4962 as 4963.
### PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

Sec.
1.
Tax imposed.
2.
Definitions and special rules.
3.
Tax tables for individuals having taxable income of less than $20,000. 1

[4.
Repealed.]
5.
Cross references relating to tax on individuals.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title V, §501(c)(1), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1559, substituted "Tax tables for individuals having taxable income of less than $20,000" for "Optional tax tables for individuals" in item 3 and struck out item 4 relating to rules for optional tax.

**1969**—Pub. L. 91–172, title VIII, §803(d)(9), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 685, substituted "Definitions and special rules" and "Optional tax tables for individuals" for "Tax in case of joint return or return of surviving spouse" and "Optional tax if adjusted gross income is less than $5,000" in items 2 and 3, respectively.

1  Section catchline amended by Pub. L. 95–30 without corresponding amendment of analysis.
#### § 3175.140 Flow-computer software testing.

The BLM will approve a particular version of flow-computer software for use in a specific make and model of flow computer only if the testing performed on the software meets all of the standards and requirements in §§ 3175.141 through 3175.144. Type-testing is required for each software version that affects the calculation of flow rate, volume, heating value, live input variable averaging, flow time, or the integral value. Software updates or changes that do not affect these items do not require BLM approval.