alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51192 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSEPH LEE STRAIT, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CV-350 USDC No. 5:05-CR-185-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Joseph Lee Strait, Jr., federal prisoner # 61036-180, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion wherein he challenged his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base. Strait’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is granted. Strait argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object to the enhancement of his sentence asNo. 06-51192 -2- both legally inapplicable under the Sentencing Guidelines and unconstitutional under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Strait also argues that his trial counsel failed to file a notice of appeal on his behalf even though he specifically requested that counsel do so. To obtain a COA, Strait must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003). With respect to his claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his objection to the sentence enhancement, Strait has failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, his motion for a COA is DENIED as to this claim. With respect to his claim that his counsel failed to file a requested notice of appeal, Strait has made the showing required for the issuance of a COA. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 477, 483 (2000). Accordingly, Strait’s motion for a COA is GRANTED solely with respect to this issue. IFP GRANTED. The judgment is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further development in the district court.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00273

- CR

RAFAEL MARTINEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 158 TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. F

- 2009

- 1533

- B

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered “ Appellant ’ s Motion t o Withdraw Notice of Appeal and

Dismiss. ” The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate

procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been

delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 /s / Bonnie Sudderth

BONNIE SUDDERTH

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGST ON, C.J.; WALKER and SUDDERTH, JJ

.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 27 , 2016
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 23, 2015

a0416

Order 

Clerk

April 23, 2015

150491

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150491

COA: 318633

Wayne CC: 11-009674-FC

PIERRE LAMAR TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DAVID KENT THACKER, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-2333

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-01092-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the court’s October 26, 2023, and 

December 6, 2023, orders, and David Kent Thacker, Jr.’s 

failure to submit the court’s filing fee,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 23-2333 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 01/22/2024
2 THACKER v. US

The appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

January 22, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 23-2333 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 01/22/2024
### MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2012 -**  **1093** Docket Number

**2011 -**  **SW -**  **020 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Brantly Intern ational, Inc., Service Bulletin No. 111, dated February 10, 2011.

**MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137
**DURING THE HOURS O F:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### § 263.62 Relevant considerations for assessment of civil penalty.

In determining the amount of the penalty to be assessed, the Board shall take into account the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the financial resources and good faith of the person charged, the gravity of the misconduct, the history of previous misconduct, the economic benefit derived by the person from the misconduct, and such other matters as justice may require.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3675

To transfer administrative jurisdiction of a parcel of real property comprising 

a portion of the Defense Supply Center in Columbus, Ohio, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2003

Mr. HOBSON (for himself, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, and Mr. TIBERI) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL

To transfer administrative jurisdiction of a parcel of real 

property comprising a portion of the Defense Supply 

Center in Columbus, Ohio, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDIC4 TION, DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER, COLUMBUS, 

5 OHIO. 

6 (a) TRANSFER REQUIRED.—As soon as practicable 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
2

•HR 3675 IH 

1 of the Army shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the 

2 administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans 

3 Affairs a parcel of real property consisting of approxi4 mately 20 acres and comprising a portion of the Defense 

5 Supply Center in Columbus, Ohio. 

6 (b) USE OF THE REAL PROPERTY.—The Secretary 

7 of Veterans Affairs shall use the real property as the site 

8 for the construction of a new outpatient clinic for the pro9 vision of medical services to veterans. 

10 (c) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROP11 ERTY.—

12 (1) ASSESSMENT.—Prior to the transfer of the 

13 real property under subsection (a), the Secretary of 

14 the Army shall conduct an environmental assessment 

15 of such property to document all reasonably ascer16 tainable information that exists on the environ17 mental condition of such property. 

18 (2) COSTS.—Any costs incurred in conducting 

19 the assessment under paragraph (1), including any 

20 costs associated with any actions undertaken to 

21 bring such property into compliance with any Fed22 eral, State, or local environmental laws or regula23 tions, shall be borne by the Secretary of the Army. 

24 (d) DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY.—
3

•HR 3675 IH 

1 (1) SURVEY REQUIRED.—The exact acreage 

2 and legal description of the real property to be 

3 transferred under subsection (a) shall be determined 

4 by a survey satisfactory to the Secretary of the 

5 Army. 

6 (2) COST.—The cost of the survey carried out 

7 under paragraph (1) shall be borne by the Secretary 

8 of Veterans Affairs.

Æ
Exhibit 99.13





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON








Golden Star Resources Ltd.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Golden Star Resources Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “43-101 Technical Report on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves Golden Star Resourced Ltd., Wassa Gold Mine, Ghana” effective date December 31, 2012 and filed on March 21, 2013 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2013 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2013, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents and the Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.








/s/ Lucy Roberts_________________________


Dr. Lucy Roberts





March 25, 2014
#### § 650.80 Final discharge and release of the conservator.

At such time as the conservator shall be relieved of its conservatorship duties, the conservator shall file a report on the conservator's activities with the Farm Credit Administration. The conservator shall thereupon be completely and finally released.
----

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

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer         |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the             |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                               |
| May      14, 2008                                  |
|                                               |
|                                               |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                              |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                  |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                               |
| May      14, 2008                                  |
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1032 PLATE 14

Feet
3 ue 5 °
oro 3 ~E rat NSW. SOE. ret
Gouge with minor.
pyrite, chalcopyrite EXPLANATION
pyriteychaleopyrite f
G
mag t
f bs}
Borren fractures and slip pl
4 come arren fractures ond slip planes =
into many subparall
froctures Woll rock is Precambrion gronite gneiss
{ s
§
8200+ é |
First level Eost Cothgn mine
,
€ / 4
fy
Fi le
s1004 PoE Fractures serving os
by woterceurses
/ { } Chalcopyrite, pyrite, golena,
Wood (275 level spholerite, quartz
{ t
' eas} 8825
\ 4
fs
‘ot
9000. L
\ ty loin pyrite, cholcopyrite, golena,
‘spholerite
{ IZ in gouge with 1/8 to 1/16 in.
{ ol Wafers!
th
mn {
beara) { t
eae t
it present
aaa # From footwall to hanging walt:
4 in pyrite, cholcopyrite
tt { V2. gouge with yrite-cholcopyrie stringers
He Sin. quortz with chalcopyrite-pyrite stringers
aaa i} } ii 20 in. strongly sericitized rock with stringers
I ‘ond potches of pyrite, chalcopyrite. Ore much
im} ‘stronger in back of stope, as much os [2 in. of
i t solid sulfide minerals
v4
fis t
it
testan | t 22004 | e800
pest 8
Feeal in| He, §
exert |
im) EY
it | Fron footwon haa wall
{i} Bin. gouge with pyrite stringers
1 ~ Gin. cholcopyrite, pyrite, quartz in lenses and
ia . so
iL) ‘stringers
i h, SHceal a mineieaneae
Wood drt eos ari
Sith evel | qj Sah vel eos ert From footwall to hanging wal:
Sint evel ; we it rom footwal ging walt
Eee cate, 4 fet Caton cout cost el Tear erage eee emco ire
\ IOin sihcified rock with Gieseminated pyrite
Position of FO) 4 ( \ { Qin, chalcopyrite, galena, pyrite, spholerite,
Seo if tetrohedrite, quortz
Teas ‘ ae IGin gouge with pyrite stringers
‘Section along line A-A ‘Section along line B= 6 ‘Section clong line C=CTM Eeiipspoepeneithietesem (pater ipyeite’
a From footwall to hanging wol:
° GEOLOGIC SECTIONS OF THE EAST CALHOUN MINE Bie coe ait eid ooeis
Bin. chaleopyrite, goleno, pyrite, sphalerite,
40 ° ___ 120 Feet tefrohedrite, quoitt
‘Dotim Te mean seo level Jin. gouge with pyrite-chalcopyrite stringers ond
disseminated pyrite
EXPLANATION 87754 ssaribonrb) SP, + 8775
tee 12 in. quortz, pyrite, choleopyrite, gatena, spholerite
Vein
Dashed where opproximately located
ae Very strong chalcopyrite
Borren tract
Lageing slong shatt
VA. pyrite
Mine workings ri ,
Bisa Ss rom footwoll to hanging wal:
ERTS CO CRLee Bin. breccioted pitchbiende with pale-yellow pyrite
= 11/2 in. cholcopyrite with lote goleno
Fenn 7/2 in. strongly sericitized rock with 1/8 to 1/64 in. Roise driven under 0 Defense
lal | pyrite stringers Minerals Exploration Administration
Postmineral slip on hanging wall controct
Line of section shown on plates 12 and13
and figure 29 WOOD ORIET
SIXTH LEVEL _
oH. B7551t | EAST CALHOUN MINE

DETAILED SECTION OF THE WOOD 520 RAISE

° 20 Feet
i L 1 j

Datum is mean sea level

GEOLOGIC SECTIONS OF THE EAST CALHOUN MINE AND DETAILED SECTION OF

THE WOOD 520 RAISE, CENTRAL CITY DISTRICT, GILPIN COUNTY, COLORADO

413512 © -57 (In pocket)
§ 412.7 Conditions for acceptance. ( a ) Eximbank may accept payment for employee travel from a non-Federal source when a written authorization to accept payment is issued in advance of the travel following a determination by the employee's supervisor (except in the case of Board members) and the DAEO that the payment is: ( 1 ) For travel relating to an employee's official duties under an official travel authorization issued to the employee;
( 2 ) For attendance at a meeting or similar event as defined in § 412.3(c)(3): ( i ) In which the employee's participation is necessary in order to further the mission of Eximbank;
( ii ) Which cannot be held at the offices of Eximbank for justifiable business reasons in light of the location and number of participants and the purpose of the meeting or similar event; and
( iii ) Which is taking place at a location and for a period of time that is appropriate for the purpose of the meeting or similar event;
( 3 ) From a non-Federal source that is not a conflicting non-Federal source or from a conflicting non-Federal source that has been approved under § 412.9; and
( 4 ) In an amount which does not exceed the maximum per diem or actual subsistence expense rates and transportation class of service limitations prescribed in 41 CFR chapter 301.
( b ) An employee requesting approval of payment of travel expenses by a non-Federal source under this part shall submit to the employee's supervisor (except in the case of Board members) and the DAEO a written description of the following: the nature of the meeting or similar event and the reason that it cannot be held at Eximbank, the date(s) and location of the meeting or similar event, the identities of all participants in the meeting or similar event, the name of the non-Federal source offering to make the payment, the amount and method of the proposed payment, and the nature of the expenses.
( c ) Payments may be accepted from multiple sources under paragraph (a) of this section.
Filed 9/21/10 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2010 ND 181

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Keith Allen Kraft, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20100005

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce A. Romanick, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Julie Ann Lawyer (submitted on brief), Special Assistant State’s Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 699, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-0699, for plaintiff and appellee.

Thomas John Glass (submitted on brief), 418 East Rosser Avenue, Suite 301, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Kraft

No. 20100005

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Keith Kraft appealed from a district court criminal judgment convicting him of one count of manufacturing methamphetamine and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.

[¶2]Kraft contends that (1) the warrantless search of his vehicle was illegal and (2) the district court’s rereading of testimony went beyond the scope of the jury’s request to rehear testimony and violated Kraft’s right to a fair trial.  We summarily affirm on the first issue under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  See State v. Washington, 2007 ND 138, ¶ 17, 737 N.W.2d 382 (seizure of evidence in plain view in a vehicle after occupant’s arrest was justified under the plain view doctrine or as incident to a lawful arrest); State v. Proell, 2007 ND 17, ¶ 8, 726 N.W.2d 591 (as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful arrest of an occupant of a vehicle, an officer may search the vehicle without a warrant); State v. Maurstad, 2002 ND 121, ¶ 16, 647 N.W.2d 688 (law enforcement officers, as well as probation officers, may conduct warrantless probation searches).  We summarily affirm on the second issue under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4) and (7).  See State v. Christensen, 1997 ND 57, ¶¶ 10-11, 561 N.W.2d 631 (failure to specifically object to the scope of testimony reread to the jury waives that issue, and rereading testimony not specifically requested by the jury is harmless error).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
----

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety

(2006/C 171/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of European standards under the directive)

NOTE:

----

(1)  (1) ESO: European Standardisation Organisation:

(2)OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

(3)OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18.

----
0 2 4 8 12 16 20

Miles

Map 177

Roundup Harlowton

T7N

Pompeys Pillar

T Big Timber 1N Billings T2 Columbus S

Bridger

T8S

R18E R29E Montana

R104W R93W

T Wyoming 57N

Wyoming

Location Map

Montana

Billings

Field 

Office

Ü

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Billings & Pompeys Pillar 

National Monument RMP / EIS

Map scale 1:900,000

Map generated by the Billings Field Office in April 2015

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the data for

individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. 

This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was

developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

Legend

Sage Grouse PMHA and 

GMHA and Right-of-Way

Corridor Allocations

State Border

Planning Area Boundary

Sage Grouse PMHA 

Sage Grouse GMHA

Utility Proposed Corridor

Utility Exitisting Corridor

^ Towns

Public Lands Survey System
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3838

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

___________________________

No. 21-3862

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Central

____________ Submitted: June 29, 2022 Filed: July 12, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Tavin Daudinot appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed at his consolidated sentencing hearing after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and his supervised release was revoked. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable, as the record shows that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011), and there is no indication that the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (sentences are reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factors); United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines sentence may be presumed reasonable). We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. -2-
#### § 107.11 Applicability.

This subpart applies to the operation of all civil small unmanned aircraft systems subject to this part.