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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-50839, 97-50954

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AUDEN BERNAL CABELLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-97-CR-73-3

- - - - - - - - - -

September 17, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Auden Bernal Cabello appeals his conviction for possession

with intent to distribute marijuana and the revocation of his

supervised release based on his commission of that offense. He

argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was no

evidence linking him with the marijuana in the white Chevrolet

truck. The record was not devoid of evidence of Cabello’s

knowledge and his actions in aiding and abetting the offense of
No. 97-50839, 97-50954

-2-

possession with intent to distribute marijuana in conformity with

the lead-car-load-car modus operandi. United States v. Pierre,

958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc); United States v.

Villareal, 565 F.2d 932, 938 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v.

Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court

did not abuse its discretion in revoking Cabello’s supervised

release. United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir.

1995).

AFFIRMED.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 966 

To enable the Department of State to respond to a critical shortage of 

passport processing personnel, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2007 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To enable the Department of State to respond to a critical 

shortage of passport processing personnel, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Department of State 

5 Crisis Response Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REEMPLOYMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE ANNUITANTS. 

7 Section 61(a) of the State Department Basic Au8 thorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2733(a)) is amended— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 966 IS

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘To facilitate’’ 

2 and all that follows through ‘‘, the Secretary’’ and 

3 inserting ‘‘The Secretary’’; and 

4 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2008’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

6 SEC. 3. REEMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN SERVICE ANNU7 ITANTS. 

8 Section 824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 

9 (22 U.S.C. 4064(g)) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘to facili11 tate’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Afghanistan,’’; 

12 and 

13 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2008’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
#### § 1910.33 Table of contents.

This section lists the sections and paragraph headings contained in §§ 1910.34 through 1910.39.

## § 1910.34 Coverage and definitions.

(a) Every employer is covered.

(b) Exit routes are covered.

(c) Definitions.

## § 1910.35 Compliance with Alternate Exit Route Codes.

## § 1910.36 Design and construction requirements for exit routes.

(a) Basic requirements.

(b) The number of exit routes must be adequate.

(c) Exit discharge.

(d) An exit door must be unlocked.

(e) A side-hinged exit door must be used.

(f) The capacity of an exit route must be adequate.

(g) An exit route must meet minimum height and width requirements.

(h) An outdoor exit route is permitted.

## § 1910.37 Maintenance, safeguards, and operational features for exit routes.

(a) The danger to employees must be minimized.

(b) Lighting and marking must be adequate and appropriate.

(c) The fire retardant properties of paints or solutions must be maintained.

(d) Exit routes must be maintained during construction, repairs, or alterations.

(e) An employee alarm system must be operable.

## § 1910.38 Emergency action plans.

(a) Application.

(b) Written and oral emergency action plans.

(c) Minimum elements of an emergency action plan.

(d) Employee alarm system.

(e) Training.

(f) Review of emergency action plan.

## § 1910.39 Fire prevention plans.

(a) Application.

(b) Written and oral fire prevention plans.

(c) Minimum elements of a fire prevention plan.

(d) Employee information.

[67 FR 67961, Nov. 7, 2002, as amended at 76 FR 33606, June 8, 2011]
CIT YO F 

# FORT LAUDERDAL

E
' i \ J 

### SPOHI ^ FLORID A 'Venic e o f Armric a Joh n P . "Jack " Selle r

MAYO R 10 0 NORT H ANDREW S AVENU E (954 J 828-500 3 (954 ) 828-566 7 FA X jack.seiler@fortlauderdale.go v www.fortlauderdale.go v 3330 1 

### o n

Februar y 25 , 201 0 ACTIO N Th e Honorabl e Ra

y LaHoo d Secretary Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S

E Washington , D.C . 2059 0 

## 70 ( S10-f00304-02 9

Re : Haned aCombinatio nService s Allocatio nProceedin g DOT-OST-2010-001 8 Dea r Secretary LaHood : I applau dyou r

effort s o nth e recen t

histori c ope nskie s agreemen t wit hJapan . Recognizin g tha t th e wid e rangin g opportunitie s mad e possibl e b y th e agreemen t include s ne w ai r

servic e t o Toky o Haned aairport , I wante dyo u t o kno w tha t I fully suppor t

Continenta l Airlines ' applicatio nt o provid e dail y nonsto p servic e fro mNe w York/Newark t o Toky o Haneda . Continenta l Airline s i s committe dt o th e Asia nregio nan dt o nonsto p Toky o Haned aservice . Th e gatewa y at

Continental' s Newar k

Liberty hu b allow s a neasy , one-airlin e connectio nbetwee nToky o Haned aan dth e Fort

Lauderdale-Hollywoo dInternationa l Airport . Becaus e Continenta l ha s th e larges t hu b i nth e Ne w York/Newark regio ncapabl e o

f cormectin g destination s acros s th e U.S . wit h Toky o Haneda , Continental' s proposa l a t Liberty offer s th e Fort

Lauderdal e regio naconnectin g gateway . Th e individua l economie s i nth e regio nan dth e million s o f U.S . consumer s her e wil l benefi t fro mContinental' s propose dservice , an dwil l combin e t o mak e thi s ne w Toky o Haned aservic e fro m Newar k Liberty area l success . Fo r th e benefit s tha t

thei r applicatio nbring s t o m y communit y an dt o s o man y other s throughou t th e Florid aregion , I urg e tha t yo u t o awar dToky o Haned aright s t o Continenta l Airline s at Newar k Liberty Internationa l Airport . Than k yo u for you r seriou s consideratio nan dbes t wishe s for health . success , happiness , an dgoo d 'ours , y |

p . "JACK " SEILE

R R

PRINTE D O N RECYCLE D PAPE R ^ #
(78 South. 639)

#### STATE v. BAUMHAUER.

(1 Div. 285.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 9, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Norvelle R. Leigh, Jr., Judge.

Suit between the State and J. IT. Baumhauer. From judgment rendered, the State appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and G. H. Kruempel, of Mobile, for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill of exceptions in the .record, and the brief of the Attorney General filed for the appellant confesses that there is no error in the record, and that the assignments of error are not well taken. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000060150
<NAME> W. JOSEPH DRYER
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      112
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,242
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           600
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,253
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,632
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     82
<INCOME-TAX>                                        29
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 53
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        53
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
§ 2200.204 Discontinuance of Simplified Proceedings. ( a ) *Procedure.* If it becomes apparent at any time that a case is not appropriate for Simplified Proceedings, the Judge assigned to the case may, upon motion by any party or upon the Judge's own motion, discontinue Simplified Proceedings and order the case to continue under conventional rules. Before discontinuing Simplified Proceedings, the Judge will consult with the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
( b ) *Party motion.* At any time during the proceedings any party may request that Simplified Proceedings be discontinued and that the matter continue under conventional procedures. A motion to discontinue must conform to § 2200.40 and explain why the case is inappropriate for Simplified Proceedings. Responses to such motions shall be filed within the time specified by § 2200.40. Joint motions to return a case to conventional proceedings shall be granted by the Judge and do not require a showing of good cause, except that the Judge may deny such a motion that is filed less than 30 days before a scheduled hearing date.
( c ) *Ruling.* If Simplified Proceedings are discontinued, the Judge may issue such orders as are necessary for an orderly continuation under conventional rules.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 119 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 119

  To authorize testimony by a former detailee of the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony by a former detailee of the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary.

Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary has received a request from an attorney 
        in the Office of the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation for a declaration from a former detailee of the Committee, 
        Steven M. Dettelbach, for use in the Department of Justice's 
        administrative proceeding styled In re George A. Runkle, Jr., OARM-WB 
        No. 06-2;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be 
        taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; 
        and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take 
        such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the former detailee of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, Steven M. Dettelbach, is authorized to provide a declaration 
for use in the administrative proceeding In re George A. Runkle, Jr., 
OARM-WB No. 06-2.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth *versus*George Dewitt.

One was indicted for a larceny in this, county. The evidence at the trial was, that the goods were stolen in another county, and brought hither by two persons other than the prisoner, who afterwards came and joined them in the possession and disposal of them. His conviction upon this evidence was held good.

The defendant, being indicted for a larceny, was tried during this term before *Sewall,*J., and, being convicted, he moved for a new trial, for the misdirection of the judge.

The judge reported the evidence that the goods were stolen in *Boston,*in the county of *Suffolk,*and brought from thence to this place by two persons, who had been committed on the same charge, but had escaped from prison. The defendant came afterwards by himself from *Boston,*joined the other two here, and was concerned with them in the possession and disposal of the goods.

The judge instructed the jury that, if they were satisfied, from the *165whole of the evidence, that the defendant was concerned in the theft at *Boston,*and afterwards in the custody and disposal of them here, they might find him guilty of the larceny, although they might not believe him concerned in the transportation of the goods from *Boston*to this place.

*Mellen,*for the defendant,

urged the motion for a new trial, and cited the case of *Commonwealth*vs. *Andrews,*(1) and *Paul Lord’s*case, there stated. All the cases are of a continuance of actual possession, not, as in the case at bar, of a possession merely constructive. The doctrine has already been carried far enough, and ought not to be extended.

** Morton,*for the commonwealth.

The conveyance [*155] was substantially by the defendant; being done by others, who were his accomplices, at his instance, and for his benefit. *Qui facit per alium, facit per se.*

(1)

1 *Mass. Rep.*14.

Sewall, J.,

said that he had entertained some doubts at the trial, and wished to have the question saved. Upon further consideration, those doubts, which had been excited by suggestions arising from technical nicety, were dissipated.

The whole Court agreed that the motion must be overruled and the defendant was sentenced, (a)

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[A person is guilty of larceny, in *Vermont,*who brings into that state property feloniously taken in *Canada.*— *State*vs. *Bartlett,*31 *Verm.*650.

A foreigner, who, after committing larceny abroad, comes into *New York,*and brings the stolen property with him, is punishable as for larceny committed in the state. — *The People*vs. Burke, 11 Wend. 129. — F. H-]

(a)

 [This decision goes upon the principle that the possession of the goods stolen by the thief is a larceny in every country into which he carries the goods, because, the legal possession still remaining in the true owner, every moment’s continuance of the trespass and felony amounts, in legal consideration, to a new caption and asportation.— 1 Chitty, *Cr. L.*178.—2 *East,*771.— *Stark. Crim. Pl. 2.*— 7 *Coke, Bulwer's*case. — 2 *Hale,*163. — *Arch. Crim. PI.*5. — 3 *Inst.*113.— See *State*vs. *Merrick,*1 Apple, 398.—Ed.]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20026]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Notice of Meetings; Correction

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
published a document in the Federal Register of August 2, 2011, 
concerning a combined meeting on August 16, 2011, of the Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) four 
National Advisory Councils (the SAMHSA National Advisory Council (NAC), 
the Center for Mental Health Services NAC, the Center for Substance 
Abuse Prevention NAC, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment NAC), 
and the two SAMHSA Advisory Committees (Advisory Committee for Women's 
Services, and the Tribal Technical Advisory Committee). The document 
contained an incorrect date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia A. Graham, 240-276-1692.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 2, 2011, in FR Doc. 2011-19478, 
on page 46312, in the second column, correct the ``DATE/TIME/TYPE'' 
caption to read:

DATE/TIME/TYPE: Monday, August 15, 2011, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Open).

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Janine Denis Cook,
Chemist, Division of Workplace Programs, Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-20026 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
(79 South. 153)

#### LEE v. STATE.

(6 Div. 501.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 28, 1918.)

Homicide <&wkey;>185 — Prevention of Crime — Insanity of Deceased.

In prosecution for homicide, defense being that defendant shot deceased while deceased was in act of committing a felony, defendant’s proffered testimony to effect that deceased was insane *held*to deprive defendant of said defense, in absence of showing that deceased was armed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; H. B. Foster, Judge.

John Lee was convicted'of manslaughter in the first degree, and appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 3 years as a punishment for this offense. The homicide occurred at midnight near defendant’s residence, and at the time, as the evidence tends to show, the deceased was attempting to commit a felony, and was intercepted by the defendant in the act; that, when defendant accosted deceased, he turned on defendant, and his conduct was such as would warrant a reasonable man in the be-, lief that he intended to attack defendant. At this juncture, the defendant fired one shot from the rifle, which took effect in the deceased’s body, and caused his death. At the time the shot was fired, defendant had no knowledge as to the identity of the deceased, and the undisputed evidence shows that the deceased was unarmed.

Defendant proffered testimony to the effect that the deceased was insane, that a few years before he had become insane on the subject of religion, that he had never recovered, and that he had been an inmate of an insane hospital. The rejection of this evidence by the court constitutes the only exception in the record. While this evidence might have been beneficial to the state and relevant as tending to show that the deceased was not in the act of committing the felony at the time he was killed, it was clearly not beneficial to the defendant. Its tendency was to deprive him of the benefit of the defense that he killed deceased while deceased was in the act of committing-a felony, and in the absence of evidence showing that the *480deceased, was armed, and that he was known to defendant at the time defendant fired said shot, such evidence would not aid the defendant in asserting the right of self-defense.

The rulings of the court on the objection to the evidence were correct, and, while the record here may present a case for executive clemency, there is nothing to warrant this court in interfering with the judgment of •conviction.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond O. Fox, Jr., Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 177]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed (see, *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.— Attempted Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Scudder, Callahan and Balio, JJ.
§ 4902.13 Filing rules; computation of time. ( a ) *Filing rules* — ( 1 ) *Where to file.* See § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to file a submission under this part with the PBGC.
( 2 ) *Method of filing.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart A of part 4000 of this chapter to determine permissible methods of filing with the PBGC under this part.
( 3 ) *Date of filing.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart C of part 4000 of this chapter to determine the date that a submission under this part was filed with the PBGC.
( b ) *Computation of time.* The PBGC applies the rules in subpart D of part 4000 of this chapter to compute any time period for filing under this part.
[68 FR 61359, Oct. 28, 2003. Redesignated at 74 FR 27082, June 8, 2009. Redesignated at 84 FR 32619, July 9, 2019]
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SEAN LYEW

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2018

[ November 21, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael A. Usan

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 04

- 18271 CF10B

.

Sean Lyew, Florida City, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III,

Assistant Attorney Gene ral, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.