alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40325 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Freddie Galan,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20

- CR

- 1266

- 1

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Freddie Galan challenges his guilty

- plea conviction for conspiring with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. He primarily contends that the factual basis was not sufficient under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(3) to support his conviction.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except u nder the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40325 Document: 00516163758 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022No. 21

- 40325

2 Because Galan raises his challenge for the first time on appeal, we review for plain error , “ examining the entire record for facts supporting the guilty plea and drawing reasonable inferences from those facts to determine whether the con duct to which the defendant admits satisfies the elements of the offense charged. ” United States v. Escajeda , 8 F.4th 423, 426 (5th Cir. 2021). We may consider, inter alia, the facts contained in the plea colloquy, the presentence report (PSR), and the sentencing hearing. United States v. Barton , 879 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir. 2018). Contrary to Galan’s contentio ns, his plea colloquy and the PSR establish that the conspiracy at issue predated the cooperation of co

conspirator Jesus Mares with the Government

. See United States v. Asibor , 109 F.3d 1023, 1032 (5th Cir. 1997) (observing that an individual who

eventua lly cooperates with Government “may have been a part of the continuing conspiracy prior to becoming an informer ”). The PSR likewise describe s communications , contained on Galan’s cell phone, between Galan and an unidentified individual with a Mexico

- based phone number discuss ing an apparent narcotic s operation

. S ee Escajeda , 8 F.4th at 42 7 (observing that defendant can be convicted of conspiring with individual whose name is unknown). Finally, the large quantity of drugs at issue

— approximately 70 kilogra ms of methamphetamine

— provides strong circumstantial evidence from which the existence of the conspiracy may be inferred. See id. Galan fails to show plain error. See id. at 426; Barton , 879 F.3d at 599.

Because Galan’s challenges to the voluntariness o f his plea and the effectiveness of his trial counsel are both premised upon his meritless factual

basis contentions, those remaining c laims likewise fail. See United States v. Kimler , 167 F.3d 889, 893 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding that counsel cannot render ineffective assistance by failing to raise meritless claim). The judgment of the district court is **AFFI R**  **MED**

. Case: 21-40325 Document: 00516163758 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
162 So.2d 571

#### Emma Fontenot BERTRAND et al. and Cursey J. Vidrine et al. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 47173.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Missouri Pacific Railroad Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit* Parish of Evangeline. 160 So.2d 19.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:95cr5032LAC

RAYMOND DANIELS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on March 5, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION UNDER TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for Reduction of

Sentence Based on Retroactive Guideline Amendment, Effective 11/1/07, concerning cocaine

base (“crack”) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on2/29/08 Doc.# 148 

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 6th day of

March, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED. MOOT.

(b) Sentence has been reduced. (Doc. 146). 

 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:

Case 5:95-cr-05032-LC-MD Document 149 Filed 03/06/08 Page 1 of 1
§ 54.1018 Form of official identification and approval for use. ( a ) The official identification symbol approved for use on equipment, utensils, or descriptive or promotional materials shall appear in the form and design shown in Figure 1.
( b ) The official identification symbol on equipment or utensils shall be displayed by etching or the placement of a non-removable sticker located in close proximity to the equipment identification plate.
( c ) The official identification symbol is recommended to be at least 3 ⁄ 4 inch by 3 ⁄ 4 inch in size. Symbols which are smaller in size will be considered provided they are sufficiently large to be identifiable and legible.
( d ) The official identification symbol shall not be used in descriptive and promotional materials without prior approval by the Chief. The official identification symbol, if used, on the descriptive or promotional materials shall be printed as part of the text or format.
( e ) An applicant shall submit to the Chief of the Dairy Grading Branch, Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456, an application, if one is not on file, requesting approval to use the official identification symbol on officially accepted equipment and in descriptive or promotional materials.
19.1303 Status as a HUBZone small business concern.       (a)                    						            Status as a HUBZone small business concern is determined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) in accordance with 13 CFR Part 126.                                          (b)                   If SBA determines that a concern is a HUBZone small business, it will designate the concern as a HUBZone small business in the Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) at *https://web.sba.gov/​pro-net/​search/​dsp_​dsbs.cfm.* SBA's designation also appears in SAM. Only firms designated in DSBS and SAM as HUBZone small business concerns are eligible for HUBZone preferences. HUBZone preferences are not contingent on the place of performance.                                          (c)                   A joint venture may be considered a HUBZone small business concern if—                                                         (1)The joint venture qualifies as small under 19.301-1(a)(2)(i);                                                            (2)At least one party to the joint venture is a HUBZone small business concern; and                                                            (3)The joint venture complies with 13 CFR 126.616(a) through (c).                                                                             (d)                   To be eligible for a HUBZone contract under this section, a HUBZone small business concern must be a HUBZone small business concern at the time of its initial offer.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
#### HAGAN, Appellant, v. McADOO, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by Thomas A. Hagan against William McAdoo.

No opinion. Motion denied.
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 quarterly report of The Furia Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2004 (the
"Report"), I, Michael Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael Alexander
-------------------------
Michael Alexander
Chief Executive Officer
December 8, 2004


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Antonette Kowalczyk, appellee, v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 37,540.

Opinion filed November 5, 1934.

Hoyne, O’Connor & Rubinkam, for appellant. Hartman Schwartz and Ethel E. Schiller, for appellee.

Mr. Justice MeSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
Subpart 42.16 - Small Business Contract

Administration

Parent topic: Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services

42.1601 General.

The contracting officer shall make every reasonable effort to respond in writing within 30 days to

any written request to the contracting officer from a small business concern with respect to a

contract administration matter. In the event the contracting officer cannot respond to the request

within the 30-day period, the contracting officer shall, within the period, transmit to the contractor a

written notification of the specific date the contracting officer expects to respond. This provision

shall not apply to a request for a contracting officer decision under 41 U.S.C. chapter 71, Contract

Disputes.
#### § 58.409 Drying room.

When applicable, a drying room of adequate size shall be provided to accommodate the maximum production of cheese during the flush period. Adequate shelving and air circulation shall be provided for proper drying. Temperature and humidity control facilities should be provided which will promote the development of a sound, dry surface of the cheese.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5448-N-01]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and other requirements for the Reallocation of Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) funds. This funding opportunity makes approximately $16 million available to assist housing projects that received Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) awards between October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2009. These TCAP funds may be used for capital investment in eligible LIHTC projects in accordance with CPD Notice 09-03. The information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements can be found at the HUD Web site at                         *http://portal.hud.gov/​portal/​page/​portal/​HUD/​recovery/​programs/​tax.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia Sigal, Director, Program Policy Division, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-2684 (this is not a toll free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800- 877-8339.

Dated: November 16, 2010.

Clifford Taffet,

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development (Acting).

[FR Doc. 2010-30498 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:96cr63-RH

EDDIE JAMES MOORE,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER DENYING SENTENCE REDUCTION

UNDER AMENDMENT 706

The defendant Eddie James Moore has moved to reduce his sentence under

United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 706. The amendment reduces the

guideline range for most crack-cocaine offenses, but not offenses involving 4.5

kilograms or crack or more. Because Mr. Moore was responsible for more than 4.5

kilograms of crack, he is not eligible for a reduction. This order denies relief. 

The presentence report cited Mr. Moore’s own post-arrest statements to law

enforcement officers indicating he received weekly deliveries of crack from coconspirator Lavorn Ford for eight months. (Presentence report ¶13.) After smaller

deliveries during the first month, the deliveries were for 20 ounces each. Id. This

put the total amount of crack in excess of 17 kilograms. Mr. Ford’s account put the

Case 4:96-cr-00063-RH-WCS Document 160 Filed 02/24/09 Page 1 of 2
amount in excess of 20 kilograms. (Id. at ¶14.) The presentence report concluded

that Mr. Moore was responsible for more approximately 20 kilograms. (Id. at ¶19.) 

Mr. Moore did not object. 

For purposes of Amendment 706, therefore, Mr. Moore is deemed

responsible for approximately 20 kilograms of crack. Under the clear law of the

circuit, Mr. Moore is not eligible for relief. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, No.

08-12264, 2008 WL 5007201, at *3 (11th Cir. Nov. 24, 2008); United States v.

Heath, No. 08-11585, 2008 WL 4649393, at *2 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2008); United

States v. Smith, No. 08-12907, 2008 WL 4951793, at *2 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2008);

United States v. Jones, No. 08-13298, 2008 WL 4934033, at *1-2 (11th Cir. Nov.

19, 2008). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The defendant Eddie James Moore’s motion to reduce sentence (document

158) is DENIED.

2. The clerk must provide a copy of this order to the attorneys of record and

the Federal Public Defender through the electronic filing system.

SO ORDERED on February 24, 2009.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:96-cr-00063-RH-WCS Document 160 Filed 02/24/09 Page 2 of 2
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*May 1, 2006*

[Cite as *05/01/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2101.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0237.

#### State ex rel. Strzala v. Gallagher.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion for leave of court to file declaratory judgment,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion is denied.
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

     I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President of SkyTerra
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
          March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          on the date hereof (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.


                                    By: /s/ JEFFREY A. LEDDY
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Jeffrey A. Leddy
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                               President (Principal Executive
                                               Officer and Principal Financial
                                               Officer)
                                               Date:  May 17, 2004


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
42.704 Billing rates.       (a) 						            The contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor responsible under 42.705 for establishing the final indirect cost rates also shall be responsible for determining the billing rates.                                          (b) 						            The contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor shall establish billing rates on the basis of information resulting from recent review, previous rate audits or experience, or similar reliable data or experience of other contracting activities. In establishing billing rates, the contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor should ensure that the billing rates are as close as possible to the final indirect cost rates anticipated for the contractor’s fiscal period, as adjusted for any unallowable costs. When the contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor determines that the dollar value of contracts requiring use of billing rates does not warrant submission of a detailed billing rate proposal, the billing rates may be established by making appropriate adjustments from the prior year’s indirect cost experience to eliminate unallowable and nonrecurring costs and to reflect new or changed conditions.                                          (c) 						            Once established, billing rates may be prospectively or retroactively revised by mutual agreement of the contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official) or auditor and the contractor at either party’s request, to prevent substantial overpayment or underpayment. When agreement cannot be reached, the billing rates may be unilaterally determined by the contracting officer (or cognizant Federal agency official).                                          (d) 						            The elements of indirect cost and the base or bases used in computing billing rates shall not be construed as determinative of the indirect costs to be distributed or of the bases of distribution to be used in the final settlement.                                          (e) 						            When the contractor provides to the cognizant contracting officer the certified final indirect cost rate proposal in accordance with 42.705-1(b) or 42.705-2(b), the contractor and the Government may mutually agree to revise billing rates to reflect the proposed indirect cost rates, as approved by the Government to reflect historically disallowed amounts from prior years’ audits, until the proposal has been audited and settled. The historical decrement will be determined by either the cognizant contracting officer (42.705-1(b)) or the cognizant auditor (42.705-2(b)).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 42.7 - Indirect Cost Rates
11.404 Contract clauses.

(a) Supplies or services.

(1) The contracting officer may use a time of delivery clause to set forth a required delivery schedule

and to allow an offeror to propose an alternative delivery schedule. The clauses and their alternates

may be used in solicitations and contracts for other than construction and architect-engineering

substantially as shown, or they may be changed or new clauses written.

(2) The contracting officer may insert in solicitations and contracts other than those for construction

and architect-engineering, a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.211-8, Time of

Delivery, if the Government requires delivery by a particular time and the delivery schedule is to be

based on the date of the contract. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar

dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date of award, the contracting officer may use

the clause with its Alternate I. If the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar

dates or specific periods and is based on an assumed date the contractor will receive notice of

award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate II. If the delivery schedule is to

be based on the actual date the contractor receives a written notice of award, the contracting officer

may use the clause with its Alternate III.

(3) The contracting officer may insert in solicitations and contracts other than those for construction

and architect-engineering, a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.211-9, Desired and

Required Time of Delivery, if the Government desires delivery by a certain time but requires delivery

by a specified later time, and the delivery schedule is to be based on the date of the contract. If the

delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on

an assumed date of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I. If the

delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates or specific periods and is based on

an assumed date the contractor will receive notice of award, the contracting officer may use the

clause with its Alternate II. If the delivery schedule is to be based on the actual date the contractor

receives a written notice of award, the contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate III.

(b) Construction. The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.211-10, Commencement,

Prosecution, and Completion of Work, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price construction

contract is contemplated. The clause may be changed to accommodate the issuance of orders under

indefinite-delivery contracts. If the completion date is expressed as a specific calendar date,

computed on the basis of the contractor receiving the notice to proceed by a certain day, the

contracting officer may use the clause with its Alternate I.

Parent topic: Subpart 11.4 - Delivery or Performance Schedules
6.303 Justifications.

6.303-1 Requirements.

6.303-2 Content.

Parent topic: Subpart 6.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition