alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he 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 

### FEB 27 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARIO JON GALE, also known as Jose Manuel Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-1288 (D.C. No. 02-CR-15-D) (D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , HENRY and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Mario Jon Gale pled guilty to one count of unlawful reentry into the United States after having previously been deported, in vi olation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 70 months’ imprisonment, the minimum sentence within the applicable range under the United States Sentencing- 2 -

Guidelines. Mr. Gale now appeals the district court’s refusal to grant him a downward departure for cultural assimilation. We e xercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM. On appeal, Mr. Gale’s counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw as appellate counsel. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In the Anders brief, counsel argues that Mr. Gale’s sentence was not imposed contrary to the law, as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines, or in excess of the applicable Guideline range, and th at Mr. Gale’s appeal is therefore wholly without merit. We have fully exam ined the proceedings as required by Anders and concluded that Mr. Gale’s appeal is indeed wit hout merit. Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s failure to depart downward in sentencing absent a claim that the cour t misunderstood its authority to depart. United States v. Coddington , 118 F.3d 1439, 1441 (10th Cir. 1997). We find no such misunderstanding on the part of the district court in this case. For the foregoing reasons, counsel’s motion to with draw is GRANTED and Gale’s conviction is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
§ 90.3T Part 90 option; notice of eligibility; exercise of option. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 28482 , Apr. 18, 2024.
Effective April 14, 2025: ( a ) Any miner employed at a coal mine who, in the judgment of the Secretary of HHS, has evidence of the development of pneumoconiosis based on a chest X-ray, read and classified in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of HHS, or based on other medical examinations shall be afforded the option to work in an area of a mine where the average concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere during each shift to which that miner is exposed is continuously maintained at or below the standard. Each of these miners shall be notified in writing of eligibility to exercise the option.
( b ) Any miner who is a section 203(b) miner on January 31, 1981, shall be a part 90 miner on February 1, 1981, entitled to full rights under this part to retention of pay rate, future actual wage increases, and future work assignment, shift and respirable dust protection.
( c ) Any part 90 miner who is transferred to a position at the same or another coal mine shall remain a part 90 miner entitled to full rights under this part at the new work assignment.
( d ) The option to work in a low dust area of the mine may be exercised for the first time by any miner employed at a coal mine who was eligible for the option under the old section 203(b) program (*www.msha.gov/REGSTECHAMEND.htm*), or is eligible for the option under this part by sending a written request to the Chief, Division of Health, Mine Safety and Health Enforcement, MSHA, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452.
( e ) The option to work in a low dust area of the mine may be re-exercised by any miner employed at a coal mine who exercised the option under the old section 203(b) program (*www.msha.gov/REGSTECHAMEND.htm*) or exercised the option under this part by sending a written request to the Chief, Division of Health, Mine Safety and Health Enforcement, MSHA, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, VA 22202-5452. The request should include the name and address of the mine and operator where the miner is employed.
( f ) No operator shall require from a miner a copy of the medical information received from the Secretary or Secretary of HHS.
[89 FR 28482, Apr. 18, 2024]
## SERVE D OCTOBE R20 , 201 1 JbPARTMENTO F U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIOMNSPORTATtON

OFFIC E O FFIEARING S '-•GGi^t l OPERATION

S WASHINGTON , D C ^ , ^^^ ^ ^ ^ , . I 2 I NTHEMATTE ROF : DEAN INTERNATFONAL , INC. , Responden t FA A Docke t No . [T O B E ASSIGNED ] (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) FDM S No . FAA-2011-006 9 ORDE R SETTIN GIVfOTIO

NCONFERENC E Th e partie s hav e file dmuhipl e Motions . Tli e Offic e o f Hearing s ha s contacte d eac hparty' s attorne y regardin g hi s calendar availability t o appear

b y telephon e fo

r a Motio n Conference . I t I s Hereb y Ordered : 1 . Th e partie s shal l conven e b y telephon e fo

r aone-hou r

Motio nConferenc e on Monday , Octobe r

24 , 201 1 a t

2:30pn i Easter ntime . Th e Offic e o f Hearing s shal l initiate th e conferenc e call .

J.E . Sullivat U.S>AdiiHifistrativ e La

w Judg e Attachment : Servic e Lis t^ FDM S No . FAA-2011-006 9 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Stuar t A . Goldstein , Respondent' s Counse l La w Office s o f

Goldstei n & Sord o 935 0 Sout hDixi e Highway , 10t hFloo r Miami , FL3315 6 TEL : 305-670-122 2 FAX : 305-670-706 5 Christophe r

R . Stevenson , Comp/ainan i ' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel . ASO- 7 Souther n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo. K 2063 6 Atlanta , G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e J . E . Sullivan , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n ^ . Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Po

r servic e i nperso n o r b y expeditedcourier, use th

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
### §30703. Foreign launch vehicles

(a) Accord With Space Transportation Policy.—The Administration shall not launch a payload on a foreign launch vehicle except in accordance with the Space Transportation Policy announced by the President on December 21, 2004. This subsection shall not be construed to prevent the President from waiving the Space Transportation Policy.

(b) Interagency Coordination.—The Administration shall not launch a payload on a foreign launch vehicle unless the Administration commenced the interagency coordination required by the Space Transportation Policy announced by the President on December 21, 2004, at least 90 days before entering into a development contract for the payload.

(c) Application.—This section shall not apply to any payload for which development has begun prior to December 30, 2005, including the James Webb Space Telescope.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3371.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30703 | 42 U.S.C. 16614. | Pub. L. 109–155, title I, §105, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2912. |

Section

In subsection (c), the date "December 30, 2005" is substituted for "the date of enactment of this Act" to reflect the date of enactment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155, 119 Stat. 2895).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the annual report ofOutdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Perry T. Massie, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Perry T. Massie     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Chief Executive Officer |
| March 16, 2006          |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Outdoor Channel Holdings,Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.1107-16 Inspection of fire suppression devices. ( a ) All fire suppression devices shall be visually inspected at least once each week by a person qualified to make such inspections.
( b ) Each fire suppression device shall be tested and maintained in accordance with the requirements specified in the appropriate National Fire Code listed as follows for the type and kind of device used: National Fire Code No. 11A “High Expansion Foam Systems” (NFPA No. 11A—1970). National Fire Code No. 13A “Care and Maintenance of Sprinkler Systems” (NFPA No. 13A—1971). National Fire Code No. 15 “Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection” (NFPA No. 15—1969). National Fire Code No. 17 “Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems” (NFPA No. 17—1969). National Fire Code No. 72A “Local Protective Signaling Systems” (NFPA No. 72A—1967). National Fire Code No. 198 “Care of Fire Hose” (NFPA No. 198—1969).
( c ) A record of the inspections required by this section shall be maintained by the operator. The record of the weekly inspections may be maintained at an appropriate location by each fire suppression device.
[37 FR 15304, July 29, 1972, as amended at 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23 (e)


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
Registration Statements of National City Bancshares, Inc. (File No. 333-10739
and 333-56295) of our report dated June 8, 1998, on our audit of the
consolidated balance sheets of 1st Bancorp Vienna, Inc. and subsidiary, as of
December 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the two years ended December 31, 1997
and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ GRAY HUNTER STENN LLP
-------------------------
Marion, Illinois
March 24, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 27, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-03-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     NOV-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       FEB-27-2000
<CASH>                                 339,270
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        6,197,242
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                         26,401,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    35,175,857
<PP&E>                              72,849,436
<DEPRECIATION>                      30,770,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      81,200,706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               20,353,216
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                               392,732
<OTHER-SE>                          14,136,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        81,200,706
<SALES>                             53,747,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    53,747,897
<CGS>                               32,408,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       32,408,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     1,640,644
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     886,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,012,876
<INCOME-TAX>                             6,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  1,012,876
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                         1,006,376
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.05



</TABLE>
### §46108. Enforcement of certificate requirements by interested persons

An interested person may bring a civil action in a district court of the United States against a person to enforce section 41101(a)(1) of this title. The action may be brought in the judicial district in which the defendant does business or the violation occurred.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1229.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 46108 | 49 App.:1487(a) (related to party in interest). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §1007(a) (related to party in interest), 72 Stat. 796. |

Section

The words "interested person" are substituted for "party in interest" for consistency. The words "may bring a civil action" are substituted for "may apply" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code and rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.). The text of 49 App.:1487(a) (words after semicolon related to party in interest) is omitted as surplus because of 28:1651 and rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
EXHIBIT 10.293
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE
                                  (NO INTEREST)

$11,020.00                    Glendale, California                 June 29, 2000


     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Joe Macias (Payor") promises to pay in lawful money of
the United States of America to Pollution Research and Control Corp., a
California corporation ("Payee"), or order, at Glendale, California, the sum of
$11,020.00 Dollars from the date hereof on the unpaid principal payable in
installments of principal only in the sum of $50.00 Dollars commencing on July
15, 2000 and payable on the same day of each month thereafter until paid in
full.

     The unpaid principal may be prepaid without penalty. Each payment hereunder
shall be credited to the principal amount.

     If each installment under this note is not paid when due, the undersigned
shall pay all costs of collection thereof, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
whether or not suit or action is commenced to enforce payment of this note, and
Payee may, at its option, declare the entire amount of the then unpaid principal
immediately due and payable if such default is not cured within 10 days after
Payee provides the undersigned written notice of such default. The undersigned
hereby waives presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.

     This note is secured by shares of Payee's common stock, no par value (the
"Shares"), pursuant to a certain Stock Pledge Agreement, dated as of June 29,
2000 (the "Pledge Agreement").

     Upon the termination of employment of Payor as an employee of Payee for any
reason, the unpaid balance of this note shall be cancelled, and the pro rata
portion of Shares which then not fully paid for, shall be returned to Payee
pursuant to the terms of the Pledge Agreement.

                                            Payor:



                                            /s/ Joe Macias
                                            --------------
                                            (Signature)
#### § 705.15 Where to file.

The head of the State Regulatory Authority shall file his or her statement with the Director. All other employees and members of advisory boards and commissions representing multiple interests, as provided in § 705.11, shall file their statements with the head of the State Regulatory Authority or such other official as may be designated by State law or regulation.

[51 FR 37122, Oct. 17, 1986]
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40927

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ISRAEL HERRERA-MUNIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-38-1

--------------------

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Israel Herrera-Muniz (“Herrera”) was convicted after a

guilty plea to illegal reentry into the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He raises two

issues on appeal, which we review for plain error. United States

v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Herrera argues that the district court erred by applying

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) at his sentencing. He argues that his
No. 02-40927

-2-

prior felony conviction for possession of marijuana did not merit

the eight-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an

aggravated felony, and that he should have received only the

four-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other

felony.” Herrera’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug

trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” for purposes of the

sentencing guidelines were recently rejected by this court in

United States v. Caicedo-Cuero, 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir.

2002). Herrera’s argument that drug possession is not an

aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B) and 1326(b)(2)

is foreclosed by our precedent in United States v. Rivera,

265 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1146 (2002),

and United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez, 130 F.3d 691 (5th Cir.

1997). Thus, the district court did not plainly err in assessing

an eight-level adjustment.

Herrera also argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2)

are unconstitutional because they treat a prior conviction for an

aggravated felony as a sentencing factor and not an element of

the offense. This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Apprendi did not overrule

Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, this argument lacks merit.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene Garner, Appellant, against Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal on original papers, five typewritten briefs, and Herbert T. Anderson, Esq., of Auburn, assigned to conduct appeal.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Laura M. Cartarius-Macri, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 362]—

*995Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 24, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as a senior keyboard specialist at a school from September 1998 until September 2005. In April and May 2005, she was on medical leave as a result of health issues related to anxiety and depression. She returned to work but felt overwhelmed with her job responsibilities and subsequently resigned from her position. Although she was initially found eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, her employer objected and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified her from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “Inasmuch as claimant’s resignation was not based upon the advice of a physician . . . and was done before affording the employer the opportunity to remedy the situation . . . the Board could find that she left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons” *(Matter of Kubiak [Commissioner of Labor],*23 AD3d 980, 981 [2005] [citations omitted]). Claimant testified that, at the time of her resignation, she experienced chest pain as well as anxiety attacks and that her doctor had previously advised her to leave her job. She did not, however, initially report this to the Department of Labor, and the request for medical information questionnaire she provided after her resignation, which was signed by a physician’s assistant, did not establish that her resignation was medically necessary *(see Matter of Sheldon [Commissioner of Labor],*29 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2006]; *Matter of Carlson [Commissioner of Labor],*307 AD2d 582, 583 [2003]). Furthermore, while the school principal stated that he took a number of measures to alleviate claimant’s work load, including hiring a clerk to assist her, claimant resigned before the clerk started working. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Feters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
§ 77.1101 Escape and evacuation; plan. ( a ) Before September 30, 1971, each operator of a mine shall establish and keep current a specific escape and evacuation plan to be followed in the event of a fire.
( b ) All employees shall be instructed on current escape and evacuation plans, fire alarm signals, and applicable procedures to be followed in case of fire.
( c ) Plans for escape and evacuation shall include the designation and proper maintenance of adequate means for exit from all areas where persons are required to work or travel including buildings and equipment and in areas where persons normally congregate during the work shift.
(Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*))
[36 FR 9364, May 22, 1971, as amended at 36 FR 13143, July 15, 1971; 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995]