alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60349 Summary Calendar LAMBERT ROSLINS CHIMA LUCIOUS, also known as Lambert Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Roslins Emereni, also known as Lambert Roslins Lucious, also known as Lambert R. Lucious, Petitioner,

v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A26 385 989

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lambert Roslins Chima Lucious petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal and ordering him removed from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Lucious, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was convicted in March 1993 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in

excess of one kilogram of heroin. Lucious contends that he is notNo. 06-60349 -2- removable because he is a United States citizen. Lucious claims that he filed an application for naturalization and interviewed for citizenship in 1992, at which time he signed his oath of allegiance to the United States and surrendered his resident permit card. “[A] person may become a national only by birth or by completing the naturalization process.” Omolo v. Gonzales , 452 F.3d 404, 409 ( 5th Cir. 2006). Lucious was not born in the United States, and he has not completed the naturalization process. The filing of an application for naturalization accompanied by the taking of an oath of allegiance and by the surrendering of a green card is insufficient to establish citizenship. See id. at 408 & 409. Lucious has not shown that he is a national of the United States, and therefore he is subject to removal. See id. Lucious also contends that his due process rights were violated when the immigration judge failed to provide him access to his citizenship application files and denied his request to subpoena Government officials to testify concerning the status of his naturalization application. Lucious has failed to allege how the contents of his citizenship files or the testimony of the Government officials would have affected the outcome of the removal hearing. The failure of Lucious to complete the naturalization process is indisputable. Lucious has not made an initial showing of substantial prejudice. See Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 06-60349 -3- For the foregoing reasons, Lucious’s petition for review is denied. His motion for production of his citizenship files is denied as this court is not the appropriate forum for such a motion. Lucious’s motion for appointment of counsel also is denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Lopez GUARDADO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10588.

D.C. No. CR-99-40174-SBA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Guardado’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

James Lopez Guardado appeals his 30-month sentence imposed following the district court’s revocation of his supervised release term. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Guardado contends that the district court abused its discretion by finding that Guardado committed a “controlled substance offense,” a Grade A violation of his supervised release terms. Specifically, Guardado alleges that the court erred because it did not identify the specific evidence it relied upon in finding that his conduct constituted possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. This contention is refuted by the record.

“[A] district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release.” *United States v. Musa,*220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*531 U.S. 999, 121 S.Ct. 498, 148 L.Ed.2d 469 (2000); *see also*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). If the parties have specific disagreements regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the evidence, “the record must clearly reflect that the court considered the position of each of the parties and must identify the basis on which the court resolved any disputes at the time of the hearing.” *United States v. Sesma-Hernandez,*253 F.3d 403, 409 (9th Cir.), *cert denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 408, 151 L.Ed.2d 310 (2001).

The record contains sufficient evidence that (1) indicates the court considered Guardado’s and the government’s positions regarding whether Guardado committed a “controlled substance offense,” and (2) identifies the basis under which the court *660found that Guardado possessed methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. *See id.*Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Guardado committed a Grade A “controlled substance offense.”

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9 th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00134-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., ET AL,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00445

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Geneva Garcia’s notification of late reporter’s record is hereby GRANTED. Time is 

extended to April 19, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### § 1201.61 Exclusion of evidence and testimony.

Any evidence and testimony that is offered in the hearing and excluded by the judge will be described, and that description will be made a part of the record.
### Faulk, Scott (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: Aloha, Mike Heacock <emheacock@hotmail.com> Friday, November 08, 2013 9:34 PM EAS (OST) EAS Kalaupapa

...;; _.,**~- -~:.**  ..·--·. ·< i j

I am writing in support ofawarding a 4 year EAS to Makani Kai Air Charter. The service provided has been outstanding. The pricing is fair and the schedule has been adjusted with inputfrom the community residents and workers. Makani Kai has made it simple and convenient forthe workers who reside "topside" to getto work. The ease oftravelingwithout havingto transit a busy commuterterminal is priceless. The personalized service such knowing the names offrequent travelers and the needs ofour elderly fliers will likely not be duplicated by any other carrier. Such personal attention is held in high esteem by our community. I have reviewed the proposal from thethree other bidders and cannot see howthey can match the service provided by Makani Kai. The negligible difference in cost between Makani Kai and Mokulele should not be a factor. Upon closer review Mokulele will have a baggage fee and likely otherfees such as reservation changes. This in itselfwill cause much dismay amongthe residents and workers who utilize Makani Kai. For those who live topside and flyto workthe lack offees is invaluable. The changing offlights and the liberal baggage policy allows necessary and comfort items to be brought without being financially penalized. I hope this letter conveys the strong connection Makani Kai has developed with our community. I do not believe there is a resident orworkerwho has ever had a negative experience duringthe time Makani Kai has been providing service. Bearingthis in mind alongwith the established schedule and fare structure it is apparantthat Makani Kai should remain our carrier. Mahala fortakingthe time to read this. I may be contacted via this email address. Regards, Edward M. Heacock Resident of Kalaupapa.

1
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-06-023 May 15, 2006

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2005 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR PALISADES NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear

Management Co. on Tuesday, May 23, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for

last year at the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Covert, Mich.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at Holiday Inn

Express, 1741 Phoenix Road, South Haven, Mich. The NRC staff will present the results of the

assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of

the meeting. 

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Palisades plant and the nation’s other

commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance

with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain

the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding

our regulation of these facilities.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/pali_2005q4.pdf .

The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Palisades plant operated safely during the period. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant

performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Palisades during 2004 were

determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline

level of inspections during the upcoming year.

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and

by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are
equipment inspection and testing, environmental monitoring, radiological protection, fire protection,

and preparations for a 2007 outage to replace the reactor vessel head.

Current performance information for Palisades is available on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALI/pali_chart.html .

###
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited September 30, 1996 Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations
for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such statements as filed in the Company's Form 10-QSB for the nine
months ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         758,113
<SECURITIES>                                 1,432,806
<RECEIVABLES>                                  629,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    342,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,193,776
<PP&E>                                       1,665,892
<DEPRECIATION>                               (749,046)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,127,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,927
<BONDS>                                        219,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,686,579
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,143,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,127,558
<SALES>                                      2,525,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,525,795
<CGS>                                        1,484,437
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,484,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,906,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,802,485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,865,509)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,802,485)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
ONE COMMERCE SQUARE, 40 SOUTH MAIN ST., MEMPHIS, TN 38103 November 26, 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor,

Room W12-140
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Docket No. FAA-2002-13930.

Dear, Sir / Madam:

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR) § 11.61, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., REXA-257A, petitions the Adminis trator for an extension of Exemption No.

7504 E to 7504 F, Docket FAA-2002-13930.

This extension will allow Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. continuation of relief exemption from (14 CFR) § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) by allowing substitution of a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that i ncludes a takeoff and a landing.

Approval of this Exemption fo r Pinnacle Airlines will benef it the public good by improving the reliability of air service for many communiti es Pinnacle Airlines serves. Extending this Exemption will not adversely affect safety, because it will not change the criteria for observing a qualifying Pilot in Command. The conditions provided in Exemption 7504E and subsequent revisions will continue to ens ure the proper use of th is authority. Extending this exemption, if granted, would have no adv erse impact on the interests of the aircraft
operators or on government agencies.

Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 901-800-0054 if you have any questions

Respectfully submitted,

David Wilson Director, Flight Operations
NRC NEWS              U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                             Office of Public Affairs, Region I

                                         475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.www.nrc.gov 

No. I-07-036                                                                                                                          June 21, 2007Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330          E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTORAT PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have appointed Stephen“Max” Schneider as the agency’s Senior Resident Inspector at the Pilgrim nuclear power plant.  Hejoins Resident Inspector Chris Welch at the Plymouth, Mass., plant.

Schneider, who previously served as Senior Resident Inspector at the Millstone nuclear powerplant in Waterford, Conn., replaces Bill Raymond, who has been appointed as the Senior ResidentInspector for the Seabrook nuclear power plant in Seabrook, N.H.

“Max Schneider has extensive technical and regulatory experience, and has demonstrated thededication to safety to carry out NRC’s commitment to protect people and the environment," said NRCRegion I Administrator Samuel J. Collins.  “He is our eyes and ears on site, monitoring dailyoperations.”

Schneider joined the NRC’s Region IV Office in Arlington, Tex., as a reactor engineer in 1999. In 2000, he was assigned as a Resident Inspector at the River Bend nuclear power plant in Louisianaand then in 2002 was promoted to the Millstone position.  He earned a bachelor’s degree in civilengineering from the University of Lowell in Massachusetts.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC Resident Inspectors.  Theyconduct regular inspections, monitoring significant work projects and talking with plant workers andthe public.

The Resident Inspectors at the Pilgrim plant can be reached at 508-747-0565.

                                                                           ###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
**IMAGIN MOLECULAR CORPORATION**(Formerly Known As)Cipher Holding Corporation

|Exhibit 32.2
|------------



CERTIFICATION THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Neil Sy , Chief Financial Officer of Imagin Molecular Corporation (the "Company"), certify,
          that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,
          2005 of the Company (the "Report"):

1.   The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: April 20, 2006

|/s/ Neil SyNeil Sy
                                        Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---
#### Martin Hollo, Appellee, v. Wasson Coal Company, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the City Court of Harrisburg; the Hon. A. E: Somers, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Martin Hollo against Wasson Coal Company to recover for personal injuries sustained by *513plaintiff while engaged as a helper in operating a ma-' chine for undercutting coal in defendant’s mine. The. injury resulted from the fall of the roof of the mine.. Plaintiff claimed that the roof had been loose and, drumming for several days, that defendant had failed to furnish props and that the mine examiner of defendant had failed to observe the condition of the roof and mark it as required by statute. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $2000, defendant appeals.

M. S. Whitley, for appellant; Mastin & Sherlock, of counsel.

George E. Dodd and Clark *&*Hutton, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Mines and minerals, § *176*
      ***
      *—when recovery for injury to miner sustained liy the evidence.*In an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by a miner where it was alleged that the injury was caused by failure of defendant to furnish props and to have the roof examined and marked as required by statute, *held*that a verdict for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence.

2. Mines and minerals, § *188*
      ***
      *—when instructions not misleading.*In an action to recover for injuries sustained by a miner alleging a wilful violation of the statute, criticism of instructions given for plaintiff that they were misleading for the reason that they in effect told the jury that the defendant had been guilty of a wilful violation of the statute, *held*not well founded.

3. Appeal and error, § *450*
      ***
      *—when admission of testimony cannot*6e *complained of.*Error in the admission of hearsay testimony cannot be complained of for the first time on appeal.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §32. Lake George, Mississippi

Lake George, in Yazoo County, in the State of Mississippi, is declared to be not a navigable water of the United States within the meaning of the laws enacted by the Congress for the preservation and protection of such waters.

The right of Congress to alter, amend, or repeal this section is expressly reserved.

(May 24, 1922, ch. 198, §§1, 2, 42 Stat. 552.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The two sentences comprising this section are respectively sections 1 and 2 of act May 24, 1922, entitled "An act declaring Lake George, Yazoo County, Mississippi, to be a nonnavigable stream".
### §574a. Training funds

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may include individuals not employed by the Department of the Army in training classes and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in which the Secretary determines that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to include those individuals as participants.

#### (b) Expenses

#### (1) In general

An individual not employed by the Department of the Army attending a training class or course described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the training provided to the individual.

#### (2) Payments

Payments made by an individual for training received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the training—

(A) may be retained by the Secretary;

(B) shall be credited to an appropriations account used for paying training costs; and

(C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without further appropriation, for training purposes.

#### (3) Excess amounts

Any payments received under paragraph (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the Treasury of the United States.

(Pub. L. 110–114, title II, §2016, Nov. 8, 2007, 121 Stat. 1076.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 110–114, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.