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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40006

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMIRO VARGAS, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:06-CR-888-ALL

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ramiro Vargas, Jr. appeals his jury verdict conviction for transmitting in

interstate or foreign commerce a communication containing a threat to injure

the person of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). He argues on appeal

that: (1) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s

verdict because his actual laptop computer was never produced at trial, and

there was no mention that the laptop had been damaged by an electrical surge

prior to its seizure; and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40006

2

failing to request production ofthe laptop and by failing to assertthat the laptop

had been damaged.

Examination ofthe record indicates that, viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the jury verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that

the Government proved all of the essential elements of Vargas’s crime beyond

a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Morales, 272 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir.

2001); United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover,

we do not consider Vargas’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because

he did not raise them in district court and the present record is insufficiently

developed to resolve them. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091

(5th Cir. 2006).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
M. P. No. 77-191.

#### Providence Gas Company *v.*Edward F. Burke *et al.*

*Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Michael P. DeFanti, Robert J. Ferranty,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michael-son,*Attorney General, *R. Daniel Prentiss,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for respondents.

The petitioner’s motion that the decision and order of the Commission in Public Utilities Commission docket number 1225 be stayed, pending hearing and decision on the merits, is granted, on the condition that any credit or refund which is made will bear interest at eight (8%) per cent per annum from the date of this order.

The petitioner’s motion for special assignment is granted and this ease is assigned to the calendar for October, 1977 for oral argument.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
              THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
              EXTRACTED FROM DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE
              QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
              IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                        0000028630
<NAME>                                0
<MULTIPLIER>                       1000
<CURRENCY>                 U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                            JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                   1
<CASH>                                                        6,391
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                81,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  1,275
<INVENTORY>                                                  71,815
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            170,052
<PP&E>                                                       62,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                               33,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              334,717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       141,416
<BONDS>                                                     102,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                        101
<OTHER-SE>                                                   82,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                334,717
<SALES>                                                      94,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             94,521
<CGS>                                                        87,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                87,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            3,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               3,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  1,899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           1,898
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  1,898
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0.18



</TABLE>
#### SAGE, Respondent, v. BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, B’irst Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by W. Jay Sage against the Barber Asphalt Paving Company. E. Wells, Jr., for appellant. G. E. Morgan, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
600

600

650

N E W P O R T PA R K R DN E W P O R T PA R K R D

L A K E M I C H I G A N

Spider

Island

Outer

Shoal

Four Foot

Shoal

Washington

Island SE

Ellison

Bay

Sister

Bay

Spider

Island

Washington

Island SW

Baileys

Harbor

East

05

08

04

09

06

03

07

99

10

00

03

N

01

06

05

97

04

98

02

02

10

09

03

97 N

07

04

08

01 07 09

02

05 06 08

01 E 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

49

50

49

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

000m

50

50

50

49

50

49

50

50

49

50

50

5

50

5

49

50

5

000m

5

5

000m

5 5 5 5

5 5

5

5 5 5

5 000m 5 5

2 750 000 FEET E

2 770 000 FEET

490

FEET

530

000

FEET

000

10' 10'

12'30" 12'30"

15'

EQ

ER

00' 30"

45°

87° 55'

87° 30"

15'

EQ

86°

ER

45°

57'

00' 57' 55'

30"

45°07' 45°07'30"

52'

30"

86°52'30"

00

02

01

98

99

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WISCONSIN

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SPIDER ISLAND, WI

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

SPIDER ISLAND QUADRANGLE

WISCONSIN

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 16T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Wisconsin Coordinate System of 1983

(central zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 3 ́

1 MILS

4° 48 ́

85 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

16T

EQ

ER 50 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 48 ) IV-C-14 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:53 AM Sheet 48of 232~ p ?

I ^W? 7 £ UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY V%jl-P ^ WASHINGTON , D.C. 20460 % P 

### * ^ _*_ , JA N 

### - 6 I9 f

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N Honorabl e Michae l DeWin e U.S . Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . DeWine : Than k yo u fo r passing along the comment s o f Mr . Davi d Oga n an d Mr . William

C . Ros e concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l b e considere d a s w e prepar e ou r Fina l Rule . W e wil l als o be placing the mi n the publi c docke t fo r th e Rul e (Docke t No . A-87-11) .

• • * Thank yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter . | Sincerel yyours , 

## IS/ Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s cc : Docke t A-87-1 1P. 3

,.,., , 1 5 IS8 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,625
<PP&E>                                         229,965
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          540,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,311
<OTHER-SE>                                   (100,801)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,235
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  755,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (785,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (785,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 19,522
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (765,830)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
(May 21, 1964)

#### U. S. Vitamin & Pharmaceutical Corporation, Respondent, v. Capitol Cold Storage Company, Inc., Appellant, and Polytemp, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment entered March 21, 1963, in favor of plaintiff: in the sum of $15,858.02 in a property damage action, unanimously modified on the law, on the facts and in the interests of justice, to the extent of directing a new trial on the cross complaint of defendant Capitol Cold Storage Company, Inc., against defendant Polytemp, Inc., with costs to abide the event, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-respondent. The evidence is to the effect that the pipe to which the offending sprinkler head was affixed was horizontal prior to the occurrence and subsequent thereto was observed to have deviated therefrom in the direction of and closer to the furnace. The reason for the change in position of the pipe might well be a question of fact. The jury was not entitled, however, to credit the speculation of defendant Poly-temp’s expert that the sprinkler head branch was impaired prior to the occurrence since there was no evidence to support that claim. Further, that the jury was confused with respect to the issues involved in the cross complaint is apparent from its request for clarification of the instructions with regard thereto and the colloquy which followed the court’s attempt at clarification. The charge failed to clearly and adequately set forth the principles of law applicable to the issues on the cross complaint. Where a charge is so inadequate as to preclude fair consideration by the jury of the issues, the judgment entered on the resulting verdict will be reversed and a new trial ordered. *(Poyas*v. *RKO Keith Orpheum Theatres,*14 A D 2d 358.) The fact that exception was not taken to the charge does not preclude this court from ordering a new trial in the interests of justice. *(Molnar*v. *Slattery Contr. Co.,*8 A D 2d 95, 100; *Arroyo*v. *Judena Taxi,*20 A D 2d 888.) Concur-—Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9775 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9775

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 119 North Anderson Street in Elwood, Indiana, as the ``Officer Noah 
                Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 2024

 Mrs. Spartz (for herself, Mr. Mrvan, Mr. Yakym, Mr. Banks, Mr. Baird, 
 Mr. Pence, Mr. Carson, Mr. Bucshon, and Mrs. Houchin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 119 North Anderson Street in Elwood, Indiana, as the ``Officer Noah 
                Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER NOAH JACOB SHAHNAVAZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 119 North Anderson Street in Elwood, Indiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Officer Noah Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Noah Jacob Shahnavaz Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
### §10312. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of chapters 103 to 107 of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–110, title I, §18, Aug. 6, 1965, 79 Stat. 446; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 91–285, §2, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 314.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973o of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### §103501. Establishment

(a) In General.—There is established in the Treasury an account to be known as the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund.

(b) Deposits.—All amounts received by the United States each fiscal year from sales by the National Park Service of National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes under section 805(b)(1) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act that are in excess of $10,000,000 shall be deposited into the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund as offsetting collections and shall remain available to the Secretary until expended.

(c) Use of Funds.—Funds collected and deposited into the National Park Centennial Challenge Fund—

(1) shall be used for projects or programs approved by the Secretary to further the mission of the Service and to enhance the visitor experience in System units;

(2) may not be used to acquire lands or interest in lands; and

(3) may only be used if matched, on at least a 1-to-1 basis, by non-Federal donations (including funds and fairly valued durable goods and materials) to the Service for signature projects or programs.

(d) Limitation on Source of Funds for Matching.—Amounts derived from the Second Century Endowment for the National Park Service shall not be treated as non-Federal donations for purposes of subsection (c)(3).

(Added Pub. L. 114–289, title I, §101(a), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1483.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 805(b)(1) of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is classified to section 6804(b)(1) of Title 16, Conservation.
EXHIBIT 23.3


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS






        We consent to the inclusion in this  Registration  Statement on Form S-4
for General  Communication,  Inc.,  of our report dated March 15,  1994,  on our
audit of the statements of operations,  changes in partners' capital deficiency,
and cash flows of Prime Cable of Alaska,  L.P.  for the year ended  December 31,
1993. We also consent to the  reference to our firm under the caption  "Experts"
in the Registration Statement.



                                                 COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


                                                           /S/




Austin, Texas
September 30, 1996




                                                         REGISTRATION STATEMENT
                                                                         II-629
# C_2023064EN.01002601.xml

| 21.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/26

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/381 and in Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/379 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran apply

(2023/C 64/09)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/235/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2023/381 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 359/2011 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/379 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Iran.

The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons and entities should be included on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/235/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 359/2011.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 359/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 14 March 2023, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 51.

(2)  OJ L 51 I, 20.2.2023, p. 36.

(3)  OJ L 100, 14.4.2011, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 51 I, 20.2.2023, p. 13.

---
§ 915.10 State regulatory program approval. The Secretary approved the Iowa regulatory program, as submitted February 28, 1980, and amended and clarified on June 11, 1980, and December 15, 1980, effective April 10, 1981. Copies of the approved program are available at: ( a ) Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil Conservation, Henry A. Wallace Building, E. 9th and Grand Streets, Des Moines, IA 50319.
( b ) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center, Alton Federal Building, 501 Belle Street, Alton, IL 62002.
[64 FR 20166, Apr. 26, 1999]
#### § 1602.8 Classifying authority.

The term *classifying authority* refers to any official or board who is authorized in § 1633.1 to classify a registrant.