alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99CR77 LAC

TYRELL PLAIR

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on AUGUST 5, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO TITLE 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 8/4/08 Doc.# 128

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 26 day of

th

June, 2009, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) Defendant was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence of 240 months as

required by law. The mandatory minimum has not been reduced.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Document No. 

Case 3:99-cr-00077-LC-CJK Document 134 Filed 06/26/09 Page 1 of 1
MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2005-1483.

#### State ex rel. Navistar Internatl. Transp. Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 04AP-638, 2005-Ohio-3284. On request for oral argument. Request denied.
RECORD OF CONVERSATION NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION Jeffrey Smith, Manager, Airman Training and Certification Branch (Federal Aviation Administration) Mr. Dan Snyder, ChiefOperating Officer, NeptuneAviation Services, Inc. SUBJECT Request for further information on aircraft NeptuneAviation Services, Inc. seeks to operate under the petition for exemption found in Docket No. FM-2015-0058. DIGEST On 2/27/2015, Mr. Smith contacted Mr. Snydervia email and requested the following information pertaining to Neptune Aviation Services, Inc.'s petition for exemption:

- Registration numbers ofthe aircraftthat would be covered by an exemption, ifgranted -Type certificate data sheet numbers forthe aircraftthatwould be covered by an exemption, ifgranted On 2/28/2015, Mr. Snyder responded via email with the requested information. CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED The information provided by Neptune Aviation Services, Inc. will be used by the Federal Aviation Administration during the consideration ofthe petition for exemption.


## IJeffrey Smith

# ~~~-· "3/1/ /ZrJJ3
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00301-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 30th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC30-CR2023-0153

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

TIMOTHY MICHAEL TEMELCOFF, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: November 22, 2023
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 250 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 250

 To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements 
  on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2013

 Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place additional requirements 
  on the establishment of national monuments under that Act, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENT.

    Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the 
``Antiquities Act of 1906''; 16 U.S.C. 431) is amended by striking ``, 
in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation'' and inserting `` 
to declare, subject to approval by an Act of Congress,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                      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 Quarterly Report of Third-Order
Nanotechnologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Ashton,
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: November 14, 2007


                                /s/ Andrew J. Ashton
                                ------------------------------------
                                Andrew Ashton, Treasurer
                                Third-Order Nanotechnologies, Inc.
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

95-2303.

#### State ex rel. Chaffins v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 94APD09-1380. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 268, 695 N.E.2d 253. On motion for *1413reconsideration. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
NUMBER 13-24-00226-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.V.G., A CHILD

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 105TH DISTRICT COURT

OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Tijerina and Peña 

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 2, 2024. On May 6, 2024, the Clerk of the 

Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal was defective and did not comply with 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b), 9.5, and 25.1. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.1(b), 9.5, 

and 25.1(d). On May 30, 2024, that notice was returned to the Court and marked “return 

to sender,” “unclaimed,” and “unable to forward.” On May 23, 2024, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that a filing fee was past due. On June 28, 2024, that notice was 

returned to the Court and marked “return to sender,” “unclaimed,” and “unable to forward.”
2

Finally, on June 3, 2024, the Clerk of the Court again sent appellant notice of the defective 

notice of appeal. On July 19, 2024, the notice was returned to the Court and marked 

“return to sender,” “unclaimed,” and “unable to forward.”

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign 

any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, fax number, 

if any, and email address." See id. R. 9.1(b). The clerk’s office does not have a 

telephone number for Appellant, and the district clerk did not have any additional contact 

information for the appellant.

Furthermore, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3 permits an appellate court, 

on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all parties, to dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See

id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. R.

42.3.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

1st day of August, 2024.
```
**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 of Eldorado  Artesian  Springs,  Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Cathleen
Shoenfeld,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC
SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

        /s/ Cathleen Shoenfeld
        Cathleen Shoenfeld
        Chief Financial Officer

        Dated: June 29, 2004
```
#### § 29.3045 Order (case).

The state of tobacco with respect to its moisture content.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 2500.056 Civil rights.

Awardees must comply with the civil rights requirements of 7 CFR part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. In accordance, no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the recipient receives Federal financial assistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement.
#### § 3431.20 Administration.

The VMLRP will be administered by NIFA. NIFA may carry out this program directly or enter into agreements with another Federal agency or other service provider to assist in the administration of the VMLRP. However, the determination of the veterinarian shortage areas, peer review of individual VMLRP applications, and the overall VMLRP oversight and coordination will reside with the Secretary.

[75 FR 20243, Apr. 19, 2010, as amended at 79 FR 76001, Dec. 19, 2014]
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 Quarterly Report
of SRKP 3, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





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





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





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerNovember
      10, 2010
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2062 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

275 Front Street in Marietta, Ohio, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Joshua 

C. Taylor Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2013 

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio (for himself, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. RYAN of 

Ohio, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. TURNER, Mr. STIVERS, 

Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. LATTA, Mrs. BEATTY, 

and Ms. FUDGE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 275 Front Street in Marietta, Ohio, as the 

‘‘Lance Corporal Joshua C. Taylor Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL JOSHUA C. TAYLOR MEMO4 RIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 275 Front Street in Marietta, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2062 IH

1 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Cor2 poral Joshua C. Taylor Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Josh7 ua C. Taylor Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Case 4:03-cv-00107-SPM-AK   Document 212   Filed 01/04/07   Page 1 of 1
* 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 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50710

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN PEDRO HIPOLITO-TREVINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-851-1-WWJ

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Pedro Hipolito-Trevino (Hipolito) appeals the 41-month

sentence he received after pleading guilty to one count of

illegal reentry into the United States after having been

deported. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Hipolito contends that his sentence violated due process and

should have been limited to two years because his indictment

failed to allege the prior drug-trafficking conviction. As he
No. 04-50710

-2-

concedes, this contention is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).

Hipolito also contends that he is entitled to resentencing

because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory

application of the guidelines that has been prohibited by United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57, 769 (2005). Because

Hipolito did not raise this issue in the district court, we

review for plain error. United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407

F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005). Although there was an error under

Booker, Hipolito fails to demonstrate that the district court

would have imposed a different sentence under advisory

guidelines. Id. at 733. He therefore fails to show that the

error affected his substantial rights as is necessary under the

plain-error standard. See id.; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d

511, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31,

2005) (No. 04-9517).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 3.81 Procedures for salary offset: when deductions may begin. ( a ) Deductions to liquidate an employee's debt will be by the method and in the amount stated in USDA's Notice of Intent to Offset Salary to collect from the employee's current pay.
( b ) If the employee filed a petition for a hearing with USDA before the expiration of the period provided for in § 3.75, then deductions will begin after the hearing officer has provided the employee with a hearing, and a final written decision has been rendered in favor of USDA.
( c ) If an employee retires or resigns before collection of the amount of the indebtedness is completed, the remaining indebtedness will be collected according to the procedures for administrative offset (see subpart D of this part).
2006-0309.

#### State v. Crosby.

Lucas App. No. L-03-1158, 2004-Ohio-4674. Reported at 109 Ohio St.3d 1426, 2006-Ohio-1967, 846 N.E.2d 535. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOpen hole and post-impact compression fatigue of stitched and unstitched carbon/epoxy compositesThe performance is studied of a stitched uniweave fabric composite and that of a toughened tape composite. The effects of stitching on compression fatigue life are addressed. Post impact compression fatigue and open hole fatigue tests were run on an AS4/3501-6 uniweave with stitching and a toughened IM7/8551-7 tape without stitching. Stitching was found to increase the thickness and consequently the weight of the composite material. The two materials were compared on an equal carbon content basis as well as on an equal weight basis. The excess thickness in the stitched uniweave composite was responsible for the lower fatigue life, on an equal carbon basis, compared to the toughened resin tape composite. Comparison of fatigue lives on an equal carbon content basis indicated that puncture or crimp type damage from stitching has very little effect on compression failure. Post impact fatigue test showed that although the damage area in the stitched uniweave composite was twice that of the toughened tape composite, the fatigue lives of the stitched composite were significantly longer than those of the toughened composite. Thus, it appears that the increase in thickness from stitching is much more of a penalty than crimped fibers or puncture type damage from stitching.Document ID19900016054Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPortanova, M. A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Poe, C. C., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Whitcomb, John D.*(Texas A&M Univ. College Station., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1990Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102676NAS 1.15:102676Accession Number90N25370Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01-05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900016054.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I,  Richard  Moore,  hereby  certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fox Petroleum Inc. for the period
          ended  November  30,  2009 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   the  information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of Fox Petroleum Inc..


Dated: January 18, 2010


                               /s/ RICHARD MOORE
                               _________________________________________________
                               Richard Moore
                               President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and
                               Director
                               (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                               Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer)




A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to Fox  Petroleum  Inc. and will be
retained by Fox  Petroleum  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 301.81-7 Cancellation of a certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement.

Any certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement may be canceled orally or in writing by an inspector whenever the inspector determines that the holder of the certificate or limited permit, or the person who has entered into the compliance agreement, has not complied with this subpart or any conditions imposed under this subpart. If the cancellation is oral, the cancellation will become effective immediately and the cancellation and the reasons for the cancellation will be confirmed in writing as soon as circumstances allow within 20 days after oral notification of the cancellation. Any person whose certificate, limited permit, or compliance agreement has been canceled may appeal the decision, in writing, within 10 days after receiving the written cancellation notice. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons that the person wants the Administrator to consider in deciding the appeal. A hearing may be held to resolve any conflict as to any material fact. Rules of practice for the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator. As soon as practicable, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0102)

[57 FR 57327, Dec. 4, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994]
#### § 29.2637 Rule 21.

Sound tobacco that is wet or in doubtful-keeping order but which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a subgrade by placing the special factor “W” after the grademark. This special factor does not apply to tobacco designated “No-G.”
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Lindsay, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 27, 1967 and made on reargument, affirmed insofar as it adhered to the previous decision denying defendant’s *eoram nobis*application. No opinion. *557Appeal from order of said court dated January 6, 1967 dismissed as academic. That order was superseded by the order dated April 27, 1967, which granted reargument. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Raibin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of St. Francis Commandery No. 102, Knights of St. John of Albany, Respondent, v. State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term which, in a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, (1) annulled a determination of the State Liquor Authority disapproving petitioner’s application for a change in its class of license from club beer license to club liquor license and (2) directed that said determination be amended to provide that petitioner is entitled to such change in class of license and that said application be acted upon accordingly. Special Term correctly held that *Matter of Marchi’s Rest.*v. *Hostetter*(21 A D 2d 214, affd. 15 N Y 2d 827) is dispositive of the issue. Appellant urges that, if issued, the license applied for would be a new license and not a “renewal” license. (Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 64, subd. 7.) Neither, in appellant’s view, would it be a “ step-up ” in the classification of the same license, as the local board termed it. Thus, appellant’s argument is that which it urged unsuccessfully in *Marchi’s (supra)*except as it now advances the equally tenuous theory that what was held there with reference to the *wine*and liquor classifications is not applicable here to the *beer*and liquor classifications. Even the incidental distinction attempted to be made by appellant by its reference to a “non-prohibited beer license” is without substance. (See Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, § 55, subd. 3, as amd. by L. 1964, ch. 531, eff. June 1, 1964; petitioner’s beer license being in effect then and thereafter.) Judgment affirmed, with costs. ‘Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Gibson, P. J'.
#### § 29.2305 Subgrade.

Any grade modified by a special factor symbol.

[37 FR 13521, July 11, 1972. Redesignated at 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]