alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-40866 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. GERARDO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CR-2437-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A jury found Gerardo Garcia guilty of one count of conspiring to posses with intent to distribu t e m ore than 50 grams of methamphetamine, one count of possessing with inte nt to di s trib ut e more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, and one count of importing more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Because he had previous ly been convicted of two qualifying drug crimes, he received a mandatory prison sentence of life. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). On appeal, he challenges the district court’s decision to deny his motion for a mistrial or, in the U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 16, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40866 Document: 00511573107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2011No. 10-40866

alternative, to exclude audio recordings of phone calls he made from prison that undercut his defense of duress. He argues that the Government violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(B)(i) when it made the recordings available to him only a few days before trial was set to begin. Under Rule 16 (a)(1)(B)(i), upon the defendant’s request, the Government must disclose recorded statements made by the defendant if the statements are in the Government’s possession, custody, or control and if the prosecutor knows

or could know that the statements exist. The record does not reveal, and Garcia does not assert, that he requested that the Government disclose the recordings. Moreover, the Government made the recordings available to the defense within two days after it obtained them. Cf. United States v. Doucette , 979 F.2d 1042, 1045 (5th Cir. 1992) (suggesting that the Govern m ent did not withhold fingerprint cards and Bureau of Al c o h o l , Tobacco and Firearms reports under Rule 16 where the Government did not receive them until the day of trial). Because Garcia has not established that the Government committed a discovery violation, he has not shown that the district court abused its di s c r e tion in not granting the relief he sought. See United Stat es v. Garcia , 567 F.3d 721, 734 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-40866 Document: 00511573107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06-CR-204-MEF

) 

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

)

United States’ Motion for Downward Departure for Substantial Assistance

The United States moves this Court to reduce Defendant Henry Erik Yapias’s

sentence by two offense-levels based on Yapias’s substantial assistance in this case. As

grounds for this Motion, the United States notes:

1. Prior to pleading guilty in this case, Yapias cooperated with the United

States. During his cooperation, Yapias provided substantial information regarding

ongoing drug and gun activity in several areas within the Middle District of Alabama. 

Particularly, Yapias was able to identify at least one individual who law enforcement did

not know was a supplier of drugs 

2. The United States submits that to the best of its knowledge Yapias has been

truthful with federal investigators. As part of the plea agreement, Yapias has waived his

right to appeal and/or collaterally attack the sentence imposed in this case. Therefore,

United States asks this Court to depart two offense-levels under Guidelines § 5K1.1 based

upon Yapias’s substantial assistance. 

Respectfully submitted this the 11th day of September, 2007.

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 46 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
-2-

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

Fax: (334) 223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 11, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of

such filing to all attorneys of record.

/s/ Christopher Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 46 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32



                        President's Written Certification
                             Of Financial Statements
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350



     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Statute 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 907 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity
as president of Ridgefield Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") that

     (a)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period Ended
          September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section
          13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (b)  the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end
          of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such
          period.


Dated:  November 12, 2009


                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2013-0627; Dir ID 2012-NM-021-AD
FILED: November 12, 2020

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 18

- 4789

(8:17

- cr

- 00242

- PWG

- 1)

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOVON LOVELLE MEDLEY

Defendant

- Appellant

___________________

O R D E R

___________________

A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having

voted in a requested poll of the court to grant the petition f or rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.

The parties shall file 16 additional paper copies of their briefs and

appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days.

This case is tentatively calendared for oral argumen t during the court’sJanuary 26

- 29, 2021, oral argument session.

For the Court

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

WESTCORP

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westcorp (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., Chapter 63, Section 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 and 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.

The foregoing Certification is furnished solely for purposes of complying with
the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to
be used for any other purpose.

|                                                                                    |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|WESTCORP                                                                           
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|/S/ ERNEST S. RADY
Ernest S. Rady
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
|                                                                                   
|Date: November 4, 2003
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0266 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0266

**89/266/EEC: Commission Decision of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Denmark (Only the Danish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 108 , 19/04/1989 P. 0021 - 0021 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 30 March 1989 approving the plan relating to the examination for residues of substances other than those having a hormonal action submitted by Denmark (Only the Danish text is authentic) (89/266/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 86/469/EEC of 16 September 1986 concerning examination of animals and fresh meat for the presence of residues (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, by letter of 25 November 1988, Denmark sent the Commission a plan setting out the national measures taken on the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC;

Whereas examination of this plan, as modified, has shown that it conforms to the provisions laid down in Directive 86/469/EEC, and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 The plan relating to the examination for residues of the substances referred to in Annex I, Groups A.III and B to Directive 86/469/EEC submitted by Denmark is hereby approved.

Article 2 Spain shall adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Denmark.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 275, 26. 9. 1986, p. 36.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





**Certification
        of Periodic Financial Report****** Pursuant
          to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Criticare
      Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
      of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:
      February 5,
      2007                                         
    /s/ Emil H.
      Soika


Emil H. Soika, Chief Executive Officer











Date:
      February 5,
      2007                                            
 /s/ Joel D.
      Knudson


Joel
      D. Knudson, Vice
      President - Finance











This
      Certification is made solely for
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained
      therein, and not for any other purpose.
# -FA 1'\ -

# .2..010-0 .L;LO Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed?



### Organization Person Contacted 

### Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 

# tJ'410tl ~ Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer 

# 511~JO'£ - Aircraft Owners &Pilots Associatioll Robert Hackman 

# ~11"/o'6 - ATA Craig Fabian 

# (1,,,104.

- 09/29/06
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

September 2, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00470-CR

NO. 14-21-00471-CR

IN RE LISA MARIE SEARCY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

212th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 19CR3596 & 19CR3597

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 19, 2021, relator Lisa Marie Searcy filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Patricia Grady, 
2

presiding judge of the 212th District Court of Galveston County, to rule on relator’s 

petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Relator is represented by counsel. A defendant is not entitled to hybrid 

representation, and, as a consequence, a trial court is free to disregard any pro se 

motions presented by a defendant who is represented by counsel. Jenkins v. State, 

592 S.W.3d 894, 902 n.47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). Moreover, in the absence of a 

right to hybrid representation, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus presents 

nothing for this court’s review. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.481, 498 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1995); Turner v. State, 805 S.W.2d 423, 425 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM CLYDE MURPHY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:05-cr-00034-F-1; 7:09-cv-00164-F)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 4, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Clyde Murphy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Clyde Murphy, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1106

W. ROMANDO JAMES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY; DIANE G. SMATHERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-97-2468-24-AK)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Romando James, Appellant Pro Se. James William Logan, Jr.,

Michael Todd Smith, LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, L.L.P., Anderson, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

December 28, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on December 29, 1999. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

W. Romando James appeals the district court’s order denying

his motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See James v.

Clemson University, No. CA-97-2468-24-AK (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 1999).*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 95.61 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued pursuant to those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant to the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
[57 FR 55080, Nov. 24, 1992]
(November 10, 1980)

#### Peter Aprea et al., Respondents, v Thomas F. Fallon, as Supervisor of the Town of Babylon, et al., Appellants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 10, 1980, affirmed, with costs. (See *Stevens v Town of Huntington,*20 NY2d 352.) Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.50 Transfer of license. ( a ) No license or any part included in a license issued under this part for an ISFSI or MRS shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license to any person, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing.
( b ) ( 1 ) An application for transfer of a license must include as much of the information described in §§ 72.22 and 72.28 with respect to the identity and the technical and financial qualifications of the proposed transferee as would be required by those sections if the application were for an initial license. The application must also include a statement of the purposes for which the transfer of the license is requested and the nature of the transaction necessitating or making desirable the transfer of the license.
( 2 ) The Commission may require any person who submits an application for the transfer of a license pursuant to the provisions of this section to file a written consent from the existing licensee, or a certified copy of an order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, attesting to the person's right—subject to the licensing requirements of the Act and these regulations—to possession of the radioactive materials and the storage installation involved.
( 3 ) The application shall describe the financial assurance that will be provided for the decommissioning of the facility under § 72.30.
( c ) After appropriate notice to interested persons, including the existing licensee, and observance of such procedures as may be required by the Act or regulations or orders of the Commission, the Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that: ( 1 ) The proposed transferee is qualified to be the holder of the license; and
( 2 ) Transfer of the license is consistent with applicable provisions of the law, and the regulations and orders issued by the Commission.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 76 FR 35574, June 17, 2011]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA simulation evaluation of a four-engine jet transport using engine thrust modulation for flightpath controlThe use of throttle control laws to provide adequate flying qualities for flight path control in the event of a total loss of conventional flight control surface use was evaluated. The results are based on a simulation evaluation by transport research pilots of a B-720 transport with visual display. Throttle augmentation control laws can provide flight path control capable of landing a transport-type aircraft with up to moderate levels of turbulence. The throttle augmentation mode dramatically improves the pilots' ability to control flight path for the approach and landing flight condition using only throttle modulation. For light turbulence, the average Cooper-Harper pilot rating improved from unacceptable to acceptable (a pilot rating improvement of 4.5) in going from manual to augmented control. The low frequency response characteristics of the engines require a considerably different piloting technique. The various techniques used by the pilot resulted in considerable scatter in data. Many pilots readily adapted to a good piloting technique while some had difficulty. A new viable approach is shown to provide independent means of redundancy of transport aircraft flight path control.Document ID19910019880Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGilyard, Glenn B.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Conley, Joseph L.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Le, Jeanette*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Burcham, Frank W., Jr.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1991Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-4324NAS 1.15:4324H-1741Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE 27th Joint Propulsion ConferenceLocation: Sacramento, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: June 24, 1991End Date: June 26, 1991Accession Number91N29194Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-64-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910019880.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