alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40318

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE VICTOR HERNANDEZ-CUELLAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-111-1

Before BENAVIDES, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Victor Hernandez-Cuellar, who is serving a 247-month sentence for 

sexual exploitation of children, appeals the district court’s order granting in 

part and denying in part his pro se motion to unseal parts of the record. 

Hernandez-Cuellar’s direct appeal of his judgment of conviction was pending 

at the time he filed his motion to unseal. As a threshold issue, we are obligated 

* 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

February 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40318 Document: 00515303317 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2020
No. 19-40318

2

to examine the basis of our jurisdiction. See United States v. De Los Reyes, 842 

F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988). 

“‘[A]n appeal divests the district court of its jurisdiction over those 

aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” United States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 

75, 101 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Pena, 713 F. App’x 271, 272 

(5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), cert. denied, 

140 S. Ct. 47 (2019). “Further, an appeal of a judgment determining the entire 

action divests the district court of jurisdiction, while that appeal is pending, 

over any further matters for that action, ‘except in aid of the appeal or to 

correct clerical errors.’” Pena, 713 F. App’x at 272-73 (quoting Nicol v. Gulf 

Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc., 743 F.2d 298, 299 (5th Cir. 1984)).

Hernandez-Cuellar’s appeal of the district court’s final judgment as a 

whole was pending at the time he filed his motion to unseal. Thus, the district 

court retained only the authority to aid the appeal or correct any clerical errors. 

His pro se motion sought to unseal documents that he believed would support

a potential 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; it did not seek to unseal documents 

relevant to the pending appeal. Therefore, the district court’s order granting 

the motion in part and denying it in part did not aid the appeal or correct 

clerical errors, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion 

while the direct appeal was pending. 

Accordingly, because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hernandez-Cuellar’s appeal of the district 

court’s order. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The 

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

 Case: 19-40318 Document: 00515303317 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2020
#### § 456.600 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes requirements for periodic inspections of care and services intermediate care facilities (ICF's), and institutions for mental diseases (IMD's).

[43 FR 45266, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 61 FR 38399, July 24, 1996]
#### § 35.10 Destruction of effects dangerous to health.

The officer in charge shall cause to be destroyed effects brought into or received in the station or hospital area by patients which, in the judgement of such officer, are dangerous as a source of disease to the health or life of patients or personnel of the station or hospital or visitors therein and cannot otherwise be safely disposed of or rendered harmless by disinfection or other means. The destruction of effects shall be witnessed by at least one officer or employee designated for that purpose by the officer in charge, and appropriate records of the destruction shall be maintained.
November 15, 2012

Mr. Revnaido Adolfo Polanco Chief of Maintenance, Air Century, S.A. Dr. Joaquín Balaguer International Airport

Local No. 1032 Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Dear Mr. Polanco:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 129.20 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your October 9, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Air Century, S.A. into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-1115), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request, including the model of aircraft, whether you’ve actually taken delivery of the aircraft and if so, have you been operating without meeting the data link requirements.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
HomeAbout...Open Government Initiative

# 									Open Government Initiative							

## Transparency * Participation * Collaboration

> 
The Government continually depends upon the support of Congress and the People, and that support can be expected only in the condition of keeping them thoroughly and truthfully informed of the manner in which the powers derived from them are executed.
**William Henry Seward**Former Secretary of State

The Open Government Directive and the Progress Report to the American People lay out how the United States is breaking down long-standing barriers between the Federal government and the people it serves. The Directive instructs agencies to take immediate, specific steps to open their doors and data to the American people.

The Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government ushers in a new era of open and accountable government meant to bridge the gap between the American people and their government.

## The State Department’s Public Engagement Activity

Prior to the publication of the 2016 Open Government Plan [5 MB], the State Department published a draft of the Plan and conducted an online discussion between federal employees and the public on the initiatives proposed for inclusion in the 2016 Plan. The goal of this dialogue was to engage with the public on the topics of transparency, participation, and collaboration and to define how these objectives are represented in the Department’s Plan.

Using the online GovUp platform hosted by TechChange, participants in the online discussion were able to review the State Department’s proposed Open Government initiatives, make comments, and share ideas prior to the publication of 2016 Plan.

## Featured Datasets

Visit the State Department on Data.gov to discover our latest datasets.

## Records and Reports

        - Budget, Performance & Plans
        - Congressional Testimony
        - Enterprise Data Strategy
        - Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) and Handbook (FAH)
        - Freedom of Information (FOIA) and Systems of Records Notices (SORNs)
        - Reports to Congress and Other Major Publications
        - Regulatory Review

## Related Resources

        - Data.gov
        - Data Informed Diplomacy
        - Foreign Assistance Dashboard
        - IT Dashboard
        - Open Government Partnership
        - Regulations.gov
        - USASpending.gov

Back to Top
#### Edward SMITH v. Thomas M. LOCKWOOD, Administrator of the Department of Employment Security, et al.

No. 65027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1979.

In re Edward Smith, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 12,537.

Writ denied.
#### § 442.16 [Reserved]
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza

# 									Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

April 14, 2023

U.S. Actions Targeting Transnational Criminals for Illicit Fentanyl Activity – United States Department of State

Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza is a fentanyl trafficker for the Sinaloa Cartel engaged in the movement of vast quantities of fentanyl from Mexico into the U.S. in pill and powder form.

In approximately September 2022, Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza, a/k/a “El Fourteen,” began negotiating the sale of fentanyl pills to a buyer in the U.S.  During those negotiations, Benitez Espinoza said that he worked for the “Chapitos” and specifically discussed his prior work with Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar and Oscar Noe Medina Gonzalez, a/k/a “Panu.”  In approximately December 2022, in exchange for wire transfers amounting to approximately $4,600, Benitez Espinoza provided approximately 10,000 fentanyl pills to couriers who brought those pills to San Diego where, in approximately January 2023, the pills were provided to a buyer.  The fentanyl pills were subsequently seized by the DEA.

On April 4, 2023, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza and others charging them with engaging in a Fentanyl Importation Conspiracy, Fentanyl Trafficking Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns & Destructive Devices, Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns & Destructive Devices, and Money Laundering Conspiracy.

The U.S. Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $1 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Luis Javier Benitez Espinoza.

If you have information, please contact the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration via email at ChapitosTips@dea.gov.  If you are located outside of the U.S., you may also visit the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.  If in the U.S., you can contact the local DEA office in your city.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingMexico

Back to Top
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00336-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.S.M., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-02012

Honorable Richard Garcia, Associate Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s modification of 

appellant’s child support obligation is REVERSED. We RENDER judgment reinstating 

appellant’s child support obligation of $419 a month. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment 

is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED December 14, 2016.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7414

EDWARD JAMES EGAN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept of Corrections, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00039-MSD-TEM) 

Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings 

Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Edward James Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). 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 petition 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 Egan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Egan’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                          TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                            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 Textron Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 28, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Thomas J. Cullen, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial 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:

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

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

                                             Textron Financial Corporation

Date: February 27, 2003                      /s/ Thomas J. Cullen
-----------------------------                -----------------------------------
                                             Thomas J. Cullen
                                             Executive Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer
#### Alva Nick DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. KK-158.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 1979.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender and John D. C. Newton, II, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*722Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Lee Mandell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

The sentence of five years imposed as to count II of the information charging appellant with unlawfully possessing paraphernalia with the intent that such paraphernalia be used for unlawfully injecting, smoking or using a drug must be vacated since the count does not charge a felony. Section 893.13(3)(a)4(b), Florida Statutes (1977), provides essentially, depending upon the allegations charged, that possession of paraphernalia shall be either a felony of the third degree or a misdemeanor in the first degree. The information failed to charge, as required in Section 893.13(1)(f), either appellant’s prior conviction of the Drug Abuse Law or that the amount of marijuana involved exceeded five grams. Cf. *Pope v. State,*268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); *Dicaprio v. State,*352 So.2d 78 (Fla.4th DCA 1977). While count I of the information charged appellant with possessing more than five grams of marijuana with intent to sell, the allegations of each count must be separately considered and not by reference to the other. We vacate the sentence imposed in count II and remand the cause to the trial court for the imposition of a sentence not exceeding the maximum provided by law for a misdemeanor in the first degree.

Appellant contends for the first time on appeal that the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on the element of intent to sell marijuana as to count I and intent to unlawfully administer drugs as to count II was fundamental error. While we think appellant was required to timely object to the instructions given, *Forceier v. State,*133 So.2d 336 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); *Williams v. State,*109 So.2d 379 (Fla.2d DCA 1959), cert. den., 113 So.2d 836 (Fla.), we nevertheless conclude that the trial court sufficiently tracked the language contained in Florida Standard Jury Instructions and, by reason of all the instructions given, no prejudice resulted to appellant which reaches “down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without . . .” the error. *Brown v. State,*124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960). See also *State v. Bryan,*287 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla.1973); *Burcham v. State,*338 So.2d 1138 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Waters *v. State,*298 So.2d 208 (Fla.2d DCA 1974).

We have considered the remaining points urged for reversal by appellant, determine that they are without merit and otherwise affirm. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting C. J. and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur.
Home1995 Treaties and Agreements...Jamaica (95-725) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

# 									Jamaica (95-725) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

July 25, 1995

Law Enforcement:  Mutual Legal Assistance

Treaty, with forms, signed at Kingston July 7, 1989; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate October 25, 1991 (Treaty Doc. 102-16, 102d Congress, 1st  Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations May 7, 1992 (Senate Executive Report No. 102-32, 102d Congress, 2d Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate July 2, 1992; Ratified by the President October 9, 1992; Ratified by Jamaica July 17, 1995; Ratifications exchanged at Williamsburg, Virginia July 25, 1995; entered into force July 25, 1995.
Download agreement						 [5 MB]

Tags

JamaicaTreatiesTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
# VlsitOrlando.

Geo rge Ague l President & CEO May 27, 2015 The Honorable John Kerry Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 The Honorable Penny Pritzker Secretary ofCommerce U
.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 The Official Tourism Association

I write to you as President and CEO of Visit Orlando, the official tourism association representing the most visited destination in the United States
. Our organization represents more than 1,200 member companies in Central Florida that are responsible for driving more than $60 billion ofannual economic impact for our community
. Orlando is known as notjust a popular vacation spot for U.S. families , but also as a global convention and leisure travel destination. We are home to seven ofthe top theme parks in the world and the No. 2 convention center in the nation. Our major conventions, attractions and events attract a significant number ofinternational visitors, representing roughly 20 percent of the hotel rooms sold in 2014. This growth is only possible ifinternational travelers find it easy and affordable to come to the United States. That is why we strongly support the policy of Open Skies
. Open Skies agreements have increased the number offlights to all regions ofthe United States, leading to more airline competition, access to new and growing markets and lower fares. It is good for travelers , the travel industry and the entire U.S. economy. Under Open Skies, international visitors have helped Orlando become the first destination to surpass 60 million visitors, with more than 62 million in 2014. It has contributed to the fact that

6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32821-8043 • 407-363-5849 ·Fax 407-370-5022 e-mail :george .aguel@visitorlando.com •Visit Orlando.comPage 2 May 27, 2015
one-third of all jobs in Orlando are tourism-related. The economic consequences of suppressing the current Open Skies agreements would be significant. For example, the recent announcement of a daily nonstop Emirates flight from Dubai to Orlando that's scheduled to begin this fall will bring more than $100 million ofeconomic impact annually to our area and open up our destination to the growing Asian travel market. The current Open Skies agreements make these flight expansions to our country possible and must be protected. We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country and around the world. We are not afraid ofcompetition. We believe that more competition in all aspects ofthe travel industry is good for consumers and good for the growth ofour industry, producing a better, more attractive travel "product" and encouraging more visitors to come here. That same spirit applies to competition in international aviation as well. We strongly urge you to preserve all existing Open Skies agreements and vigorously work to expand this successful policy.
§ 424.83 Hearings on revocation of right to receive assigned benefits. If the supplier or other party requests a hearing under § 424.82(e)(2)— ( a ) The hearing is conducted— ( 1 ) By a CMS hearing official who was not involved in the decision to revoke; and
( 2 ) In accordance with the procedures set forth in §§ 405.824 through 405.833 (but excepting § 405.832(d)) and 405.860 through 405.872 of this chapter. In applying those procedures, “CMS” is substituted for “carrier”; and “hearing official”, for “hearing officer”.
( b ) As soon as practicable after the close of the hearing, the official who conducted it issues a hearing decision that— ( 1 ) Is based on all the evidence presented at the hearing and included in the hearing record; and
( 2 ) Contains findings of fact and a statement of reasons.