alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50583

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS BANDA-VASQUEZ, also known as Jose Banda,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-01-CR-649-ALL

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

March 14, 2003

Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Luis Banda-Vasquez (Banda) appeals the sentence

following his guilty-plea conviction for being found in the

United States after a prior deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b). He argues that his prior conviction for

transporting aliens within the United States is not an alien

smuggling offense under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. This argument is
No. 02-50583

-2-

foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Solis-Campozano,

312 F.3d 164, 167 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Next, Banda argues that the district court erred in going

beyond the statute of conviction and the charging instrument to

determine that a 16-level increase in his offense level was

warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii). He contends that

the district court must employ a categorical approach to

determine whether his prior alien transporting offense was

committed for profit. 

Banda did not make this argument below, and concedes that

our review is for plain error. Assuming without deciding that

the district court and the probation officer were obliged under

our precedents to take a categorical approach, and plainly erred

in doing otherwise, we decline to correct such an error because

it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public

reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v.

McDowell, 109 F.3d 214, 216 (5th Cir. 1997). Banda does not

dispute that his prior offense was in fact committed for profit. 

His only complaint is that the probation officer and district

court went the extra mile in determining the true nature of his

prior offense. In our view, this effort does not merit

correction under the plain error standard.

Banda also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because his

prior felony conviction was not alleged in his indictment. Banda
No. 02-50583

-3-

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the

issue for further review. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
§ 125.31 Contents of certificate and operations specifications. ( a ) Each certificate issued under this part contains the following: ( 1 ) The holder's name.
( 2 ) A description of the operations authorized.
( 3 ) The date it is issued.
( b ) The operations specifications issued under this part contain the following: ( 1 ) The kinds of operations authorized.
( 2 ) The types and registration numbers of airplanes authorized for use.
( 3 ) Approval of the provisions of the operator's manual relating to airplane inspections, together with necessary conditions and limitations.
( 4 ) Registration numbers of airplanes that are to be inspected under an approved airplane inspection program under § 125.247.
( 5 ) Procedures for control of weight and balance of airplanes.
( 6 ) Any other item that the Administrator determines is necessary to cover a particular situation.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 3 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 4 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 5 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 6 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24335-1 Filed:05/22/23 Entered:05/25/23 18:30:30 Desc:

Exhibit Page 7 of 7
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3838

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ___________________________

No. 21-3862

___________________________

 United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tavin Rodriguez Daudinot

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - 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

court1

 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.

______________________________

1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Northern District of Iowa.

-2-
#### Kielwein v. Davis

*Greevy, Knittle, Fisher & Rice,*for plaintiff.

*Harry Alvan Baird,*for defendant.

*Candor, Young-man & Gibson,*for additional defendant.

November 1, 1957.

Williams, P. J., and Greevy, J.,

—Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2252 reads as follows:

> “Right to join additional defendants, (a) In any action the defendant or any additional defendant may file as of course a praecipe for a writ to join as an additional defendant any person not a party to the action who may be alone liable or liable over to him on the cause of action declared upon or jointly or severally liable thereon with him. (b) The defendant or additional defendant shall file with the praecipe a complaint, in the manner and form required of the initial *791pleading of the plaintiff in the action, setting forth the facts relied upon to establish the liability of the additional defendant and the relief demanded, (c) The writ to join an additional defendant shall be directed to him and shall be substantially. . .

The original defendant in this case has filed a praecipe to bring in the additional defendant, but no complaint. The additional defendant asks that the action be dismissed as to it because the complaint has not been filed.

The additional defendant’s argument is simple. It is that rule 2252 is mandatory that a complaint be filed with the praecipe, and that inasmuch as the original defendant has not filed his complaint, the action must be dismissed as to the additional defendant. If this argument is followed to its logical conclusion, it means that jurisdiction has not been acquired over the person of the additional defendant because of the failure to file the complaint.

The original defendant quotes from GoodrichAmram and Scabis v. Nobel, 63 D. & C. 52, which are to the effect that the filing of the praecipe for joinder is the essential part of rule 2252 and that the provision as to the filing of the complaint is merely directory. A similar decision has been reached in Chavers et ux. v. Chadderton, etc., 55 D. & C. 158, where it is held that the act which confers jurisdiction over the person of the additional defendant is the service of the writ, and that service of copies of the complaint is not essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the additional defendant.

It has been said that the object of the procedural rules committee has been to seek a balancing of the relative rights of the parties. Inasmuch as the original defendant may be ruled to file a complaint under rule 1037, we are of the opinion that the motion of the additional defendant should be refused. As to the delay, the *792parties can always,, with permission of the court, try the action between plaintiff and the original defendant without waiting for the complaint of the original defendant.

And now, November 1, 1957, it is ordered and decreed that the motion of the additional defendant is dismissed.
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 RMS TITANIC, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 14, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Arnie Geller, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Arnie Geller
-------------------------
Arnie Geller
Chief Executive Officer
October 14, 2003



                            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 RMS TITANIC, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 14, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Gerald Couture,
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:

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

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



/s/ Gerald Couture
-------------------------
Gerald  Couture
Chief Financial Officer
October 14, 2003
# AMERICAN AIRLINES

October 1, 2010

Paul L. Gretch Director Office of International Aviation Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: American Airlines, Chicago-Beijing/Shanghai Frequencies (DOT-OST-2004-19077 and 2007-28567)

Dear Mr. Gretch:

By Notice of Action Taken in the captioned dockets on September 29, 2010, the Department granted our motion of August 23, 2010 seeking flexibility to operate two Chicago-Beijing frequencies and two Chicago-Shanghai frequencies on a seasonalbasis. American requested such relief to have the same flexibility enjoyed by Continental Airlines and Delta Air Lines.

In the “Conditions” in the NOAT, the Department stated that “[s]hould American determine that it will resume year-round operations with the two Chicago-Beijing frequencies and two Chicago-Shanghai frequencies, the carrier must notify the Department” (p. 2).

By directing American to provide notice should yearround operations “resume,” the Department is suggesting that we are not now using all of our frequencies. However, American is currently operating daily nonstop service between Chicago and both Beijing and Shanghai. Our motion asked for flexibility toadjust service on a seasonal basis in the future. The Department stated that “[b]y our action here, American and Delta would have the flexibility to use the frequencies at issue here for seasonal service” (p. 2). Accordingly, if we later decide to operate the subject frequencies seasonally, the NOAT authorizes
us to do so.- 2 –

Respectfully submitted,

Carl B. Nelson Associate General Counsel American Airlines, Inc.

1101 17 th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 496-5647
carl.nelson@aa.com

cc: Docket Branch Esta Rosenberg Thuy Cooper Service list**CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE**

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document by email on the following persons:

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com jhill@dlalaw.com
scott.mcclain@delta.com bill@mietuslaw.com sametta.c.barnett@delta.com mgoldman@sgbdc.com kquinn@pillsburywinthrop.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com bkeiner@crowell.com dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com
mrosia@crowell.com mcmillin@woa.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerhale.com eskraft@jamhoff.com jeffrey.manley@united.com dpdean@jamhoff.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com dkirstein@yklaw.com robert.land@jetblue.com jyoung@yklaw.com msinick@ssd.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov cdonley@ssd.com dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil gbleopard@fedex.com john.allen@faa.gov dvaughan@kelleydrye.com byerlyjr@state.gov kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com recohn@hhlaw.com jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com lhalloway@crowell.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com efaberman@wileyrein.com lachter@starpower.net
mroller@rollerbauer.com anita.mosner@hklaw.com howard.kass@usairways.com rpommer@atlasair.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com gmurphy@crowell.com sophy.chen@hklaw.com russell.bailey@alpa.org
david.heffernan@wilmerhale.com esahr@eckertseamons.com

_______________________________ CARL B. NELSON

October 1, 2010
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptically transparent/colorless polyimidesSeveral series of linear aromatic polyimide films have been synthesized and characterized with the objective of obtaining maximum optical transparency. Two approaches have been used as part of this structure-property relationship study. The first approach is to vary the molecular structure so as to separate chromophoric centers and reduce electronic interactions between polymer chains to lower the intensity of color in the resulting polymer films. A second and concurrent approach is to perform polymerizations with highly purified monomers. Glass transition temperatures of thermally cured polyimide films are obtained by thermomechanical analysis and thermal decomposition temperatures are determined by thermogravimetric analysis. Transmittance UV-visible spectra of the polyimide films are compared to that of a commercial polyimide film. Fully imidized films are tested for solubility in common organic solvents. The more transparent films prepared in this study are evaluated for use on second-surface mirror thermal control coating systems. Lightly colored to colorless films are characterized by UV-visible spectroscopy before and after exposure to 300 equivalent solar hours UV irradiation and varying doses of 1 MeV electron irradiation. The effects of monomer purity, casting solvent and cure atmosphere on polyimide film transparency are also investigated.Document ID19860006910Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsStclair, A. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Stclair, T. L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Slemp, W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Ezzell, K. S.*(PRC Kentron Inc. Hampton, Va., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1985Subject CategoryNonmetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:87650NASA-TM-87650Meeting InformationMeeting: International Conference on PolyimidesLocation: Ellenville, NYCountry: United StatesStart Date: October 30, 1985End Date: November 1, 1985Sponsors:Society of Plastics EngineersAccession Number86N16380Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-63-91-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860006910.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
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0004 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-143-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 2013-0149

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wes Tate, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:

     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 operations
          of the Company.

                                   Date: November 19, 2010

                                   \s\Wes Tate
                                   -----------
                                   Wes Tate
                                   Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 4.1(d)
                                 Amendment No. 1
                        to the Adoption Agreement of the
                            Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.
                               Profit Sharing Plan


Pursuant to the provisions of Article XVI of the Plan, the adoption agreement is
hereby amended, effective April 1, 2001, by the substitution of the following
for section XII. B.:

"[X] B.  Testing Elections for ADP and ACP (for Plan Years beginning in 2000 and
         beyond):

         [_]   1.      Current year data for all Participants will be used.

         [X]   2.      Prior year data for Non-Highly Compensated Employees will
                       be used."


In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer hereby causes this amendment to be executed on
this ____________ day of __________________, 2001.



                                          Employer:  Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.
                                                     ---------------------------


                                                  By:
                                                       -------------------------
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GIOVANNI CARRILLO,

Appellant,

v.

GISELLE CARRILLO and MARIA CLAUDIA ZERDA,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-1534

[November 12, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2019-CP005272 SB.

Giovanni Carrillo, Bogota D.C. Colombia, South America, pro se.

Morton Antman of Morton Antman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 **Certification of the Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, James R. Gordon, the Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 of TSFG (the "Report"): 

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TSFG. 

 

/s/  James R. Gordon   

James R. Gordon 

Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer 

The South Financial Group, Inc.

August 8, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.