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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40139 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CESAR AUGUSTO MUNGIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-778-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar Augusto Mungia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 1912.40 General services.

The Assistant Secretary shall provide supporting services to advisory committees. Such services shall include clerical, stenographic, and other forms of technical assistance.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, David Sackler, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer and Financial
Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Continental Beverage
and Nutrition, Inc.,

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the
effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether
or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                         Date: July 15, 2005

                         /s/ DAVID SACKLER
                         Chief Executive Officer and Financial Officer
C-TP-77-002 COMMENT 04

21008. 

[3128-01] 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND SOI.AR 

APPLICATIONS 

[10 CFR Part 430] 

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOlt 

.APPLIANCES 

Proposed Rulemaklng and Public Hearing Regarding Test Procedures for Water Heaters; 

Cancella~ion of Hearing 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Cancellation of hearing, 

SUMMARY: On April 3, 1978 (43 FR 

13888), the Department of Energy published proposed amendments to 

Test Procedures for Water Heaters. 

The public hearing on this proposal, 

as scheduled in the FEDERAL REGISTER, 

was to be held on May 16, 1978. However, since no request to speak for this 

hearing was received, the hearing is 

hereby canceled. 

DATE: May 16, 1978. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT: 

James A. Smith, 202-566-4635. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., May 12, 

1978. 

WILLIAM P. DAVIS, 

Deputy Director 

of Administration. 

CFR Doc. 78-13412 Filed 5-15-78; 8:45 amJ 

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 95-TUESDAY, MAY Hi, 1978
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 25, 2023

No. 04-22-00792-CV

IN RE THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On November 21, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Relator also filed a 

motion for stay seeking to stay portions of the underlying order at issue pending resolution of the 

petition for writ of mandamus, which this court granted in part on November 21, 2022. After 

considering the petition, real party in interest’s response, relator’s reply, and this record, this court 

concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus 

is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on November 28, 2022 is LIFTED. 

It is so ORDERED on January 25, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of January, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021-CI-01482, styled Maria Monsibais v. City of San Antonio, pending in 

the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez presiding.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 17, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0810

Lower Tribunal No. F96-6088B

________________

Max Lee Brazley,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge.

Max Lee Brazley, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23






Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our reports dated February 16, 1996, included in
the company's 1995 Annual Report to Stockholders and incorporated
by reference in this Form 10-K and on page 31 of this Form 10-K,
into the company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form
S-8 File Nos. 33-18268, 33-24274, and 33-50949, and the company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 File Nos.
2-78952, 33-5473, and 33-66112.



                                (ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP)
                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  March 29, 1996

<PAGE>
#### § 2704.101 Definitions.

The following terms shall have the following meaning when used in these rules:

*Adjudication Officer,* as defined in 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(D), means the Commission's administrative law judge who presided at the underlying adversary adjudication between the applicant and the Secretary of Labor. For the sake of clarity, references hereafter shall be to “administrative law judge”.

*The Act* means the Equal Access to Justice Act 5 U.S.C. 504;

*The Commission* means the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, created as an independent agency under 30 U.S.C. 823;

*The Mine Act* means the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. 801 *et seq*;

*The Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor or his designee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,656
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,395
<INVENTORY>                                    175,480
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,895
<PP&E>                                         413,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                 240,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 531,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,475
<BONDS>                                          3,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,115
<OTHER-SE>                                     363,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   531,844
<SALES>                                      1,104,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,104,258
<CGS>                                          768,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  768,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                160,189
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,264
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.51


</TABLE>
§ 22.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the ARB in accordance with § 22.39.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the ARB in accordance with § 22.39.
[52 FR 48492, Dec. 22, 1987, as amended at 86 FR 1781, Jan. 11, 2021]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PEDRO CUEVAS-PEREDA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50334

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00425-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Cuevas-Pereda appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

NOV 26 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cuevas-Pereda contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing

to calculate the Guidelines range and explain sufficiently the sentence. Because

defendant did not object to these alleged procedural errors, we review for plain

error, see United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008), and find

none. The record reflects that the district court calculated the Guidelines range in

accordance with the recommendation in the plea agreement, but then varied

upward to impose the 57-month sentence. Further, it adequately explained the

sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Cuevas-Pereda also argues that the district court failed to address his

mitigating arguments at sentencing. The record reflects that the district court

considered and addressed Cuevas-Pereda’s mitigating arguments and concluded

that they did not warrant a lower sentence.

Finally, Cuevas-Pereda contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable in light of his impoverished upbringing and the age of his prior

conviction for transporting aliens. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing Cuevas-Pereda’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Cuevas-Pereda’s criminal history. See id.

AFFIRMED.

2 12-50334
# Journal officiel C 184A/17 j

| | ISSN 1725-2431 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 184A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 47e année17 juillet 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2431

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 184A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

47e année17 juillet 2004

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informations |
| | Conseil |
| 2004/C 184A/1 | | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

III   Informations

Conseil

2004/C 184A/1

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

III Informations

Conseil

| 17.7.2004 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2004

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 184/1

---

AVIS DE VACANCE

(référence A/014)

DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL

(2004/C 184 A/01)

Le secrétariat général du Conseil de l'Union européenne souhaite pourvoir à un emploi de directeur général à la direction générale H «Justice et affaires intérieures».

De plus amples informations (disponibles en langues anglaise et française) et les formulaires de candidature peuvent être obtenus en contactant le service de sélection et recrutement à l'adresse électronique suivante: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int, ou sur son site internet: http://ue.eu.int/concours

Délai: 3 septembre 2004, le cachet de la poste faisant foi.

---
#### Samuel K. Nestor, App’lt, *v.*Magdalena Bischoff *et al,*Resp’ts.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 13, 1889).*

Fees—Op sheriff—Where taxed—Waiver of objection—Code Civ. Pro., § 3387.

A motion to tax the fees of a sheriff should be made within the county; an objection, however, to a taxation without the county can be waived, and proceeding without objection is a waiver. Where the objection is raised in season, it is the duty of the judge to refuse to proceed.

This action was brought in 1874. A writ of replevin was. issued therein, and a requisition thereon was delivered to-the sheriff of Richmond county on the 14th day of July, 1884.

The sheriff alleges in his affidavit that he took possession of certain property of the defendant under and by virtue of the said writ, and that he kept such property in his possession until the 13th day of November, 1884, when an order was served upon him to discontinue the action.

In the early part of the year 1888, nearly four years after the action had been discontinued, the sheriff presented his bill for fees to the plaintiff’s attorney, and in March, 1888, a. demand was served upon the sheriff for the taxation of said bill. The taxation of the bill was regularly noticed before the county judge of Richmond county, for, the 26th day of March, 1888. On the 17th day of July, 1888, an order was made by the county judge, refusing to tax the said bill, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction of the matter. The sheriff then noticed the bill for taxation before Hon. Joseph F. Barnard, a justice of this court, at his chambers in the court house in the city of Poughkeepsie, on the 4th day of August, 1888. Affidavits were presented to said justice upon said taxation on behalf of the plaintiff in opposition to said bill, anjd on behalf of the said sheriff in support thereof. The justice taxed the costs on the 5th day of August, 1888, and an order was made by the said justice on or about the-11th day of August, 1888, taking and allowing the said bill *357at $400.32, without making any deduction from the bill as rendered. From this order the plaintiff now appeals to this court.

*William M. Mullen,*for app’lt; *J. D. Van Hovenberg,*for resp’ts.

Pratt, J.

By section 3287 of the Code a motion to tax the fees of a sheriff should be made within the county. And had the objection been raised in season it would have been the duty of the judge to have refused to proceed, with the taxation.

The objection could be waived, and proceeding without objection was a waiver. The case is analogous to the trial of an action at law. If objection is made, that can only take place within the proper county.

Yet for considerations of convenience such trials frequently take place in another county, and the validity of judgment rendered upon such trials has never been impugned.

The amount allowed upon the taxation was reasonable, and the taxation must be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurs; Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
**Instructions**

Sample and analyze the particulate matter collected in the hopper from each bag house or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) used to control particulate matter from potlines. Where more than one bag house or ESP discharges solids to a common hopper, a single sample will be adequate. In cases where solids from different compartments of a single bag house or ESP are collected in multiple hoppers or multiple collection sacks, a single composite sample will be adequate. If a wet scrubber is used to control emissions from a potline, sample and analyze the scrubber sludge removed from the scrubber, and estimate the annual mass (dry basis) of this sludge. In addition, if applicable, sample and analyze the slurry injected into the scrubber and estimate the annual mass (dry basis) of the injected slurry. Finally, if there is an aqueous discharge or blowdown stream from the scrubber, sample and analyze the this liquid and estimate the annual volume discharged. You must report the results of these chemical analyses in this Microsoft® Excel Emission Test Template. If more than one source was tested, you must make a copy of the worksheet and update the source ID in order to distinguish between each separate source of particulate matter. After completing the worksheet, you must also submit an electronic copy of the emission test report and the chemical analyses. (PDF format preferred).

## Wet Scrubber Blow **dow n**  **Facility Name and A** **ddress Unit Description**  **Process Unit ID Control Device ID** * Reynolds Metals Co., 194 County Rt. 45, Massena, NY 13662 Potline - P-OT001 A02 C5156 **Sample ID No._Water -E77 Wetscrubber WA**

**____________________ Date Sampled**  **Date(s) A naly** **zed** 5/26/2011 6/20/2011
**HA P Metal**  **mg/L** Antimony ND Beryllium 0.0008 Chromium ND Hexavalent chromium ND Lead 0.014 Selenium 0.169 Arsenic 0.05 Cadmium ND Cobalt 0.004 Manganese 0.039 Nickel 0.168 *** Enter multiple control device ID Nos. if the results apply to mulitiple control devices.**
Annual mass of scrubber blowdown removed from scrubber (gallons)
§ 32.8 Notice. ( a ) A recipient, other than a small recipient, shall take appropriate initial and continuing steps to notify participants, beneficiaries, referral sources, applicants, and employees, including those with impaired vision or hearing, and unions or professional organizations which have collective bargaining or professional agreements with the recipient, that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 and of this part. The notification shall state, where appropriate, that the recipient does not discriminate in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs or activities. The notification shall also include an identification of the responsible employee designated pursuant to § 32.7. A recipient shall make the initial notifications required by this paragraph within 90 days of the effective date of this part. Methods of initial and continuing notification may include the posting of notices, publication in newspapers and magazines, placement of notices in recipient's publications, and distribution of memoranda or other written communications.
( b ) If a recipient publishes or uses recruitment materials or publications containing general information that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, applicants, or employees, it shall include in those materials or publications a statement of the policy described in paragraph (a) of this section. A recipient may meet the requirement of this paragraph either by including appropriate inserts in existing materials and publications or by revising and reprinting the materials and publications.
[45 FR 66709, Oct. 7, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51368, Aug. 26, 2003]