alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 5/8/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GERALD MARSHAL PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-5102

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(D.C. No. 94-CR-150-1-BU)

Submitted on the briefs: *Richard D. White, Jr. of White, Hack and Duke, P.A., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for DefendantAppellant. Stephen C. Lewis, United States Attorney, and Allen J. Litchfield, Assistant United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges. KELLY, Circuit Judge.- 2 -

Mr. Payne was convicted of two counts of counts of carjacking, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2119, based on a scheme where the victim would be abducted and forced to make cash withdrawals with an ATM card. He now appeals. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Carjacking requires the government to prove that “the defendant, (1) while possessing a firearm, (2) took from the person or presence of another (3) by force and violence or intimidation (4) a motor vehicle which had moved in interstate or foreign commerce.” United States v. Singleton , 16 F.3d 1419, 1422 (5th Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted). Accord United States v. Moore , 43 F.3d 568, 572 (11th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 212 (1995). Mr. Payne maintains that the government failed to prove element (2), that he took a motor vehicle. According to Mr. Payne, the taking element requires an intent to steal or permanently deprive the victim of the motor vehicle, an intent which he lacked when he and his cohorts abducted their victims, commandeered their vehicles, and then abandoned those vehicles once the criminal purpose of the venture was achieved or thwarted by the victim. We disagree. Carjacking is a general intent crime analogous to robbery. United States v. Martinez , 49 F.3d 1398, 1401 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 749 (1996); United States v. Harris , 25 F.3d 1275, 1279-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 458 (1994). An intent to permanently deprive a victim of a motor vehicle is not required by the “taking” element. United States v. Moore , 73 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 1996); see also United States- 3 -

v. Lewis , 628 F.2d 1276, 1278-79 (10th Cir. 1980) (bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) did not require any more than temporary taking of funds), cert. denied , 450 U.S. 924 (1981). The carjacker’s motive for stealing the vehicle, be it for profit, convenience or as an instrumentality of another crime, is irrelevant. Harris , 25 F.3d at 1280. When judged against these standards and in the light most favorable to the government, Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), the evidence is sufficient. AFFIRMED.
#### Michael Doyle et al., Respondents, *v.*Bruno Beaupre et al., Appellants.

(Argued January 24, 1893;

decided February 10, 1893.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made January 28, 1892, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*559
      *Abraham Benedict*for appellants.

*Theodore Bacon*for respondents.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 382.13 Do carriers have to modify policies, practices, and facilities to ensure nondiscrimination? ( a ) As a carrier, you must modify your policies, practices, and facilities when needed to provide nondiscriminatory service to a particular individual with a disability, consistent with the standards of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended.
( b ) This requirement is part of your general nondiscrimination obligation, and is in addition to your duty to make the specific accommodations required by this part.
( c ) However, you are not required to make modifications that would constitute an undue burden or would fundamentally alter your program.
170

160 160

170

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

100

150

Cage Ranch

Airport

281

281

281

281

281

281

Calosa Creek

Calosa Creek

Calosa Creek

Cayetano Lake

Cage Gas

Field

Tres Encinos

Oil Field

Sancudo

Windmill

Wagenschein

Ranch

Cage

Ranch

South

Vargas

Windmill

Medio

Windmill

Number

Ten

Windmill

Presnall

Windmill

Barroso

Camp

Number

Eight

Windmill

Escondida

Windmill

Cuero

Windmill

Buenos

Aires

Windmill

O K

Windmill

Palomas

Ranch

Palomas

Ranch SE

F Flowella alfurrias

Cage

Ranch

Falfurrias

SE

San

Tomas

Camp Tacubaya Encino

FEET

FEET

1 070 000FEET

98°07'30"

98°

30"

15'

30"

12'

07'

98°

00'

10'

30"

NR

07'

27° 30"

27°

30"

NR

98°

15'

NQ

NQ

07'

00'

27°

10'

27°

12'

2'

5'

30" 30"

5'

2'

16 930 000

1 100 000 FEET

16 890 000

E

5 5 5 5 5

29

5

5 5

000m

29

5 5

29

5

5

29

29

5

29

5 5

29

5

29

29

29

000m

000m

5

30

29

5

29

29

30

29

29

29

29

29

5 5

29

29

000m

29

29

5

29

29

5

76 81 82 83 84

78

91

77

95

92

93

N

98

78

97

99

N

96

80

00

77

86

94

86

93

E

88

95

99

90

79 85

75

94

83

98

75

89

89

82

91

00

92

84

97

81

79

90

80

88

87

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 2798-112

CAGE RANCH, TX

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

CAGE RANCH QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14R

Imagery.................................................NAIP, January 2009

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 22 ́

7 MILS

5° 1 ́

89 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14R

NQ

NR 30 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
LEONARD BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0195

Opinion filed May 15, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

John Knowles, Assistant Public Defender, Pensacola, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, 

and is denied. See, e.g., Donaldson v. State, 895 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
#### § 417.231 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collections; 
Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary will periodically publish summaries of proposed information 
collections projects and solicit public comments in compliance with the 
requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. To request more information on the project or to obtain a copy of 
the information collection plans and instruments, call the OS Reports 
Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207.
    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.
    Proposed project 1. Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities 
(EZ/EC) Health Improvement Survey--NEW--The Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is proposing a survey of 
directors of EZ/ECs to assess their capacity to engage in health 
improvement planning efforts. Recognizing that EZ/ECs represent some of 
the nation's most economically disadvantaged and ethnically diverse 
urban and rural areas, the survey project is designed to measure the 
level of interest, commitment and priority assigned to reducing health 
disparities in these localities. The results of the survey are expected 
to assist HHS in helping EZ/EC localities devise health planning 
programs that reflect both community needs and appropriate public 
health standards. Respondents: EZ/EC Directors--Reporting Burden 
Information--Number of Respondents: 136; Annual Frequency of Response: 
one time; Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes; Total Annual Burden: 
45 hours.
    Send comments to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, 
Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 
DC 20201. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: January 7, 2000.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 00-1169 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
#### Kennedy *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided February 1, 1916.

70 South. 957.)

Charge of Court; Instructions; Reasonable Doubt.. — Charges directing the conviction of a defendant in a criminal case which omit the hypothesis of a belief of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, should be refused, and it is error to give such a charge.

Appeal from Henry Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.

Dump Kennedy was convicted of crime, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

H. L. Martin, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The court erred in giving at the request of the solicitor the following charge: “If the jury believe the evidence in this case they must find defendant guilty.” It is faulty, in that it omits the words “beyond a reasonable doubt.”— *Coe v. State,*113 Ala. 664, 21 South. 1025, and cases there cited.

Reversed and remanded.
### Section 4

Documentation that GRIC has SufficientLegal Authority Under Tribal Law to Adopt and Enforce the AQMP. See Attachment B ofTAS: 

# + GRIC Constitution 

# + GRIC Law and Order Code 

# + GRIC Organizational Chart 

# + GRIC Code Title 13 

# + GRIC Financial Management and ProcurementPolicy (April 1 1,2002) 

# + GRIC Air Quality ManagementProgram Plan
#### § 385.6 Referral to the Reviewing Official.

When the staff member finds that the public interest so requires, or that, with respect to other than matters requiring immediate action as hereafter specified, there will be insufficient time for discretionary review of his or her decision upon petition, the staff member shall, in lieu of exercising the authority, submit the matter to the Reviewing Official for decision. In any case in which the staff member finds that immediate action is required with respect to any matter assigned herein, the disposition of which is governed by prior precedent and policy, the staff member may take appropriate action and specify that the filing of a petition for review shall not preclude such action from becoming effective.
NUMBER 13-13-00411-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

KB REALTRON MANAGEMENT, Appellant,

v.

STEPHANIE DELEON, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On October 9, 2013, appellant filed a notice of bankruptcy in this appeal. 

According to the notice, appellant filed a bankruptcy petition on September 10, 2013, in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western District. 
2

Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic stay becomes effective which 

prohibits the commencement or continuation of any judicial action or proceeding against 

the debtor and any property within the debtor's bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 

362(a). Pursuant to Rule 8.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the appeal is 

suspended. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED until further order of this Court. Any 

documents filed subsequent to the bankruptcy petition will remain pending until the 

appeal is reinstated. The parties are directed to take such action as is appropriate to 

advise the Court of any change in the status of the bankruptcy proceeding which would 

affect the status of this appeal, including but not limited to, the filing of a motion to 

reinstate pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.3. See id. 8.3.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

8th day of November, 2013.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP**

**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No.333-84392, No. 333-32986 , No. 333-84515 and No.333-112962) of Pulaski Financial Corp. of our report dated October 23, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Pulaski Financial Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended September 30, 2004.****

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

St. Louis, Missouri 

December 13, 2004
§ 420.47 License modification. ( a ) Upon application or upon its own initiative, the FAA may modify a license to operate a launch site at any time by issuing a license order that adds, removes, or modifies a license term or condition to ensure compliance with the Act and the requirements of this chapter.
( b ) After a license to operate a launch site has been issued, a licensee shall apply to the FAA for modification of its license if: ( 1 ) The licensee proposes to operate the launch site in a manner that is not authorized by the license; or
( 2 ) The licensee proposes to operate the launch site in a manner that would make any representation contained in the license application that is material to public health and safety or safety of property no longer accurate and complete.
( c ) An application to modify a license shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with part 413 of this chapter. The licensee shall indicate any part of its license or license application that would be changed or affected by a proposed modification.
( d ) The FAA approves a modification request that satisfies the requirements of this part.
( e ) Upon approval of a license modification, the FAA issues either a written approval to the licensee or a license order modifying the license if a stated term or condition of the license is changed, added, or deleted. A written approval has the full force and effect of a license order and is part of the licensing record.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 07-0011

IN THE MATTER OF CALLING A RETIRED

DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTIVE SERVICE

FLED

NOV 2 3 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

ORDER s

tate of Montana

The Honorable Christopher D. Abbott, Judge of the District Court for the First

Judicial District of the State of Montana, has requested the assistance of retired District

Judge Ed McLean to assume jurisdiction of the following Lewis and Clark County Cause

Numbers:

DV-25-2018-465

DR-25-2019-210

DR 25-2011-447

DDV-2020-741

DV-251-2018-318

DV-25-2020-960

DV-25-2020-920

DV-25-2020-1430

DDR-25-2018-144

DV-2015-319

Humes v. Farmers Insurance

McGlenn v. McGlenn

Porter v. Struble

Montana Association of Counties v.

Public Emplpyees' Retirement Board

Allied Wastd Services v. Montana Department of

Public Service Regulation

Tickell v. TViight

Anaya v. Trrn

Buck v. State

Coleman v. Herndon

Reevis v. ToWn of Browning and State of Montana

Judge McLean has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement

System and, being subject to call thr duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has

advised that he is agreeable to assisting the First Judicial District Court with the

above-listed matters.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Honorable Ed McLean, retired District Judge, is hereby called to active

service in the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, to

assume judicial authority of Lewis and Clark County Cause Nos.

11/23/2020

Case Number: PR 07-0011
DV-25-2018-465

DR-25-2019-210

DR 25-2011-447

DDV-2020-741

DV-25-2018-318

DV-25-2020-960

DV-25-2020-920

DV-25-2020-1430

DDR-25-2018-144

DV-2015-319

Humes v. Farmers Insurance

McGlenn v. McGlenn

Porter v. Struble

Montana Association of Counties v.

Public Employees' Retirement Board

Allied Waste Services v. Montana Department of

Public Service Regulation

Tickell v. Wright

Anaya v. Tryan

Buck v. State

Coleman v. Herndon

Reevis v. Town of Browning and State of Montana

and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, opinions, and

orders, including final resolution of said matters.

2. For all active service, Judge McLean shall be paid the salary compensation to

which he is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be

reimbursed.

3. A copy of this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of Lewis and Clark

County, with the request that this Order be sent to all counsel of record in the above-listed

matters.

4. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to the Honorable Christopher D.

Abbott, the Honorable Ed McLean, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court

Administrator.

This Order is entered by the Chief Justice pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(3) of

the 1972 Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in

implementation thereof.

DALED this 25aiday of November, 2020.

Chief Justice

2
§ 29.549 Fuselage and rotor pylon structures. ( a ) Each fuselage and rotor pylon structure must be designed to withstand— ( 1 ) The critical loads prescribed in §§ 29.337 through 29.341, and 29.351;
( 2 ) The applicable ground loads prescribed in §§ 29.235, 29.471 through 29.485, 29.493, 29.497, 29.505, and 29.521; and
( 3 ) The loads prescribed in § 29.547 (d)(1) and (e)(1)(i).
( b ) Auxiliary rotor thrust, the torque reaction of each rotor drive system, and the balancing air and inertia loads occurring under accelerated flight conditions, must be considered.
( c ) Each engine mount and adjacent fuselage structure must be designed to withstand the loads occurring under accelerated flight and landing conditions, including engine torque.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) If approval for the use of 21 ⁄ 2-minute OEI power is requested, each engine mount and adjacent structure must be designed to withstand the loads resulting from a limit torque equal to 1.25 times the mean torque for 21 ⁄ 2-minute OEI power combined with 1g flight loads.
(Secs. 604, 605, 72 Stat. 778, 49 U.S.C. 1424, 1425)
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-4, 33 FR 14106, Sept. 18, 1968; Amdt. 29-26, 53 FR 34215, Sept. 2, 1988]
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.4 Nature and effect of policy statements.

Policy statements published in this part will be observed by the Department until rescinded, but any policy may be amended from time to time as experience or changing conditions may require. Changes in policy may be made with or without advance notice to the public and will become effective upon publication in the Federal Register unless otherwise provided. If it appears to the Department, in its consideration of any matter before it, that the application of a policy published in this part would run counter to an express provision of law or policy enunciated by Congress in 49 U.S.C., the published policy shall not be applicable to such matter.

[PS-21, 29 FR 1446, Jan. 29, 1964, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019]
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATE
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Chief
      Financial Officer of Auriga Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify
      that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of
      the
      Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/
                Frank GreicoFrank
                GreicoChief
                Financial OfficerOctober
                18, 2007