alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20493 Summary Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILSON VIDES CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-92-CR-255-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wilson Vides Castillo appeals the denial of his motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Castillo argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he could not be convicted of conspiring with government informant agents, an uncorroborated informant's tip was inadmissible hearsay and insufficient to support his conviction, and there was no evidence that he knowingly conspired with his codefendant, Hector Rocero. He also argues that the search of Rocero's car was illegal because the officer's lacked probable cause, the search followed a pretextual stop, and Castillo lacked standingNo. 95-20493 -2- to consent to the search of Rocero's home. Castillo contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object that Castillo could not be convicted for conspiring with a government informant agent, that Rocero's incriminating, inconsistent, perjurious hearsay statements were inadmissible, that the search was illegal. Castillo also argues his sentence should be remanded because he disputed the hearsay statements of government informant agents, thus there was no evidence in the presentence report (PSR) of Castillo's guilt, and the district court failed to make findings regarding the disputed facts as required by Fed. R. Cr. P. 32(c)(3)(D). However, this argument merely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Castillo's argument that the search was illegal raises a constitutional issue. Although the district court did not address the issue, the Government pleaded the procedural bar, and Castillo has not shown cause for failing to raise this issue on direct appeal or prejudice. Thus, we refuse to review it. See United States v. Shaid , 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1076 (1992). We affirm the other issues for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. Castillo does not argue the application of the sentencing guidelines issues raised in the district court; those issues are abandoned. Hobbs v. Blackburn , 752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 838 (1985).
AFFIRMED.
## CAR REVIEW **REVIEWER OPTIONS** Re que s t R

ev is ion Un appr ov e S ec ti on **Review Tips:** 

###  Check the PR/Award Number for accuracy. 

### REPORT REVIEW 

### Cover Page Note to Reviewer: **Recipient Organization:** Organization Name: City: Address 1: State: Address 2: Zip C ode: **1. Period covered by this report:**  Start Date: End Date: **2. PR/Award Numbers:**  Title I Basic Grant to States: **3. Remarks:**  (Any explanation deemed necessary or information required by Federal sponsoring agency in compliance with governing legislati on)

**4. Lead**  **individuals completing this report:** Select the lead individuals completing the report. If additional individuals without accounts will be completing the report, return to the Submit Your Report page and click "Request Access" to submit a request for additi onal user accounts. 1. Please select the individual responsible for the **narrative performance information** in this report-- se le ctus er- -

2. Please select the individual responsible for the **financial status reports** in this report:

-- se le ctus er- - 3. Please select the individual responsible for the **performance data** in this report:

-- se le ctus er- - 4. Please select the **lead individual who may be contacted to answer questions** about this report:

-- se le ctus er- -

**Public Burden Statement:** According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless su ch collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1830 - 0569. Pub lic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 174 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gath ering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit (Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV) (20 U.S. C. 2301 et seq. as amended by P.L. 109 - 270). If you have comm ents or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this APR , please contact (Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education; Director, Division of Academic and Technical Education; 550 12 th Street, SW; Washington, D.C. 20202 directly. [Note: Please do not return the completed report to this address.]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7518 

To accommodate certain facilities within the right-of-way on any Federalaid highway. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2024 

Ms. PORTER (for herself, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, Ms. NORTON, Mr. 

HUFFMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To accommodate certain facilities within the right-of-way on 

any Federal-aid highway. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Solar Use Network 

5 Act’’ or the ‘‘SUN Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACCOMMODATION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES IN 

7 RIGHT-OF-WAY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding chapter 1 of title 

9 23, United States Code, electric vehicle charging infraVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:53 Mar 05, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7518.IH H7518

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7518 IH

1 structure, renewable energy generation facilities, electrical 

2 transmission and distribution infrastructure, and 

3 broadband infrastructure and conduit shall be treated as 

4 a facility covered under part 645 of title 23, Code of Fed5 eral Regulations (or successor regulations), for purposes 

6 of being accommodated under section 109(l) of title 23, 

7 United States Code. 

8 (b) STATE APPROVAL.—A State, on behalf of the 

9 Secretary of Transportation, may approve the accommo10 dation of the infrastructure and facilities described in sub11 section (a) within any right-of-way on a Federal-aid high12 way pursuant to section 109(l) of title 23, United States 

13 Code. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 520.1263a Lincomycin tablets and syrup. ( a ) *Specifications.* ( 1 ) Each ounce of syrup contains lincomycin hydrochloride equivalent to either 25 or 50 milligrams (mg) lincomycin.
( 2 ) Each tablet contains lincomycin hydrochloride equivalent to either 25 or 50 mg lincomycin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally 10 mg per pound of body weight every 12 hours, or 7 mg per pound of body weight every 8 hours, for up to 12 days.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For infections caused by gram-positive organisms which are sensitive to its action, particularly streptococci and staphylococci.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[78 FR 28823, May 20, 2014]
1

Hunt, JeffFrom: Hunt, Jeff

Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 10:47 AMTo: Robert UkeileyCc: Fidis, Alexander; Hunt, JeffSubject: RE: EPA-R10-OAR-2013-071, Washington PM10 maintenance plan

Dear Mr. Ukeiley,

To the best of my knowledge, the Regulations.gov system does not allow me to do a final upload of supporting documents until a

publishes. Our system also gives a warning that it can sometimes take up to 24 hours for materials to post to the public website a

button. Why our government computer system is so unbelievably clunky is an issue beyond my control. That said, I checked the 

all materials are posted:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA‐R10‐OAR‐2013‐0713

If you feel like our computer system has created an undo burden on you, you are welcome to submit your comments directly to m

Public_Comments@epa.gov e‐mail address on January 28 rather than the 27th. Feel free to contact me or our Regional Counse

you have any further questions or concerns. Thanks ....... jh

From: Robert Ukeiley [mailto:rukeiley@igc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 12:43 PM To: Hunt, Jeff Subject: EPA-R10-OAR-2013-071, Washington PM10 maintenance plan Dear Mr. Hunt: I am writing to comment on the above referenced proposed rule. It appears that EPA failed to put any of the supporting documents for EPA–R10–OAR–2013–0713, Approval and PromuImplementation Plans; Washington: Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma Second 10-Year PM Limited Maintenance Plan , in the d

All I can find is the proposed rule. If you think the supporting documents are actually currently on the regulations.gov web page, please let me know. If yo

documents on the web page, I am requesting that you put all of the supporting documents in the docket on Regulations.gcomment period to at least 30 days after you provide the supporting documents. 
2

Please let me know when you have done this. Sincerely, Robert Ukeiley

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley

507 Center StreetBerea, KY 40403

Tel: 859‐986‐5402

rukeiley@igc.org

Counsel for Sierra Club
Exhibit 32.1Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Youbet.com, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles F. Champion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,Gary W. Sproule, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.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) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       August 9, 2005 By:  /s/ Charles F. Champion             Charles F. Champion      President and Chief Executive Officer         August 9, 2005 By:  /s/ Gary W. Sproule             Gary W. Sproule      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentationauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto Youbet.com, Inc. and will be retained by Youbet.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.This certification “accompanies” the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q, irrespective of an general incorporation language contained in such filing).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20205 Conference Calendar

JACKIE REYNOLDS ET AL., Plaintiffs,
MICHAEL GASTON; MICHAEL KUYKENDALL; CHRISTOPHER HERRING; JAMES MAYBERRY; LOWELL IVORY, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; TEXAS BOARD OF CORRECTIONS; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; FERNANDO E. FIGUEROA; DREWRY, Warden; M.B. THALER; RICHARD JONES; GREGORY SHIRLEY; S. WHEELER; P. MORALES; GUILLERMO DELAROSA; TERRY L. PICKETT; BRYAN B. BUCK; JAMES D. HOSEA, Captain; FRANKIE L. REESCANO; MOORE, Captain; DARREL M. LUKER; R.R. PEREZ, Badge No. 104; Individually and Officially, PHARR, Captain; QUINTINA, Captain, JAMES T. MAYES; MARC H. RODRIGUEZ; MASSINGILL, Lieutenant; RICHARD B. JAMES, Sergeant; HERNANDEZ, Sergeant; JACK H. DEAN, JR.; VALDEZ. Sergeant; MARIA I. LUNA; J. GUZMAN; MORENO; R. ODEMN; ROSAS; DIANA R. LEONARD; R. HEALY, Dr.; D. BLACKBURN; S. LOVE; ROBERT H. QUADA, JR.; DAMON REDDEN, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CV-3527

-------------------- December 14, 1999No. 99-20205 - 2 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Gaston, #701377; Michael Kuykendall, #737934; Christopher Herring, #692233; James Mayberry, #797373; and Lowell Ivory, #702233, have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case without prejudice. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The appellants are attempting to appeal the order of a magistrate judge. Because the parties have not consented to entry of final judgment by the magistrate judge, the order is not appealable to this court. Trufant v. Autocon, Inc. , 729 F.2d 308, 309 (5th Cir. 1984). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE GRANTED; APPEAL
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
§ 133.153 Monterey cheese and monterey jack cheese. ( a ) *Description.* ( 1 ) Monterey cheese, monterey jack cheese is the food prepared by the procedure set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, or by any other procedure which produces a finished cheese having the same physical and chemical properties. The minimum milkfat content is 50 percent by weight of the solids, and the maximum moisture content is 44 percent by weight, as determined by the methods described in § 133.5. The dairy ingredients used are pasteurized.
( 2 ) The phenol equivalent of 0.25 gram of monterey cheese is not more than 3 micrograms, as determined by the method described in § 133.5.
( 3 ) One or more of the dairy ingredients specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is subjected to the action of a lactic acid-producing bacterial culture. One or more of the clotting enzymes specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is added to set the dairy ingredients to a semisolid mass. The mass is so cut, stirred, and heated with continued stirring, as to promote and regulate the separation of whey and curd. Part of the whey is drained off, and water or salt brine may be added. The curd is drained and placed in a muslin or sheeting cloth, formed into a ball, and pressed; or the curd is placed in a cheese hoop and pressed. Later, the cloth bandage is removed, and the cheese may be covered with a suitable coating. One or more of the other optional ingredients specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be added during the procedure.
( b ) *Optional ingredients.* The following safe and suitable ingredients may be used: ( 1 ) *Dairy ingredients.* Milk, nonfat milk, or cream, as defined in § 133.3, used alone or in combination.
( 2 ) *Clotting enzymes.* Rennet and/or other clotting enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin.
( 3 ) *Other optional ingredients.* ( i ) Calcium chloride in an amount not more than 0.02 percent (calculated as anhydrous calcium chloride) by weight of the dairy ingredients, used as a coagulation aid.
( ii ) Enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin, used in curing or flavor development.
( iii ) Salt.
( iv ) Antimycotic agents, the cumulative levels of which shall not exceed current good manufacturing practice, may be added to the surface of the cheese.
( v ) Vegetable oil, with or without rice flour sprinkled on the surface, used as a coating for the rind.
( c ) *Nomenclature.* The name of the food is “monterey cheese” or alternatively, “monterey jack cheese”.
( d ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter, except that: ( 1 ) Enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin may be declared as “enzymes”, and
( 2 ) The dairy ingredients may be declared, in descending order of predominance, by the use of the terms “milkfat and nonfat milk” or “nonfat milk and milkfat”, as appropriate.
[54 FR 32056, Aug. 4, 1989, as amended at 58 FR 2893, Jan. 6, 1993]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0213 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA GLEN REID,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 4 2022

03/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0213
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,910,742
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,709,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,677,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,101,243
<PP&E>                                      89,297,183
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,425,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,891,369<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,910,295
<BONDS>                                      7,987,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       15,999,555
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,438
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,459,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,891,369
<SALES>                                     24,994,236<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,994,236<F2>
<CGS>                                       18,165,215
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,382,036<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (90,962)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             535,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,832,480)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,982,206)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,850,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,850,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)
<FN>
<F1>TOTAL ASSETS INCLUDES ASSETS HELD FOR SALE OF $1,168,000.
<F2>SALES AND TOTAL REVENUES ARE NET OF FEDERAL AND STATE EXCISE TAXES.
<F3>TOTAL COSTS INCLUDES SPECIAL VALUATION PROVISION OF $5,172,650.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0484

LT Case No. 18-CA-002529A

_____________________________

JEFFERY L. CORBITT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 91 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 91

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 7, 2017.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) disapproving the rule 
submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land 
Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or 
amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are 
waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House any joint resolution specified in section 3 of this resolution. All 
points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. 
Each such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in each such joint resolution are waived. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on any 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 3.  The joint resolutions referred to in section 2 of this resolution 
are as follows:
     (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State 
plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
    (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 58) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```