alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10578

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEO DILLON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-295-5

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leo Dillon is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 

841(b)(1)(A)(vii). He appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion 

for reconsideration of its previous order affirming the magistrate judge’s ruling 

revoking Dillon’s pretrial release and ordering him detained. In its response 

to Dillon’s appeal, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely.

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10578 Document: 00513136043 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2015
No. 15-10578

2

A detention order is a final decision over which we have appellate 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). “In a criminal 

case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 14 

days after . . . the entry of . . . the order being appealed.” FED. R. APP.

P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Dillon’s notice of appeal was not filed in a timely manner, nor 

was it filed within the permissible extension period of Rule 4(b)(4).

The time limit set forth in Rule 4(b)(1)(A) is mandatory, but it is not 

jurisdictional. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007) 

(citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 207-14 (2007)). Although the 

requirements of Rule 4(b)(1)(A) may be waived, see Martinez, 496 F.3d at 388-

89, the Government has not waived the issue in the instant case. Accordingly, 

the Government’s motion is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 15-10578 Document: 00513136043 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2015
#### § 779.351 Exemption provided.

Section 13(a)(11) (See § 779.301) exempts from sections 6 and 7 of the Act any employee or proprietor who is engaged in handling telegraphic messages for the public in a retail or service establishment which qualifies as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2), if the conditions specified in section 13(a)(11) are met and the provisions of section 6 and 7 of the Act would not otherwise apply.
Attendance Log

Start Date: _ _/_ _/_ _ _ _ End Date: _ _/_ _/ _ _ _ _

Sessions Attended*

Participant ID

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL

*Adapt this section to include the number of possible sessions. Use additional pages if needed

OMB Control No. 0985-0039

Exp. Date 01/31/2018

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0985-0039. The time required to complete this information 

collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions 

for improving this form, please write to: Administration for Community Living, 330 C Street SW, Washington DC 20201, Attention: PRA Reports Clearance Officer
#### § 780.107 Scope of the statutory term.

The language “farming in all its branches” includes all activities, whether listed in the definition or not, which constitute farming or a branch thereof under the facts and circumstances.
less risk than photoreconnaissance aircraft and searched broad area

incredibly valuable imagery while orbiting high above the Earth. These a

platforms propelled the United States into an unparalleled position of d

photoreconnaissance capabilities that helped the U.S. win the Cold Wa

INTELLIGENCE NEED FOR PHOTORECONNAISSANCE

Although Corona provided the capability to search large areas from sp

still lacked high resolution imagery. Approximately one year after the f

Corona, the National Reconnaissance Office began development o

resolution satellite program, codenamed Gambit. Over time, the Gam

evolved into two different systems. The first Gambit system, launch

was equipped with the KH-7 camera system that included a 77-inch 

camera for providing specific information on scientific and technica

that threatened the nation. Intelligence users often characterized this 

surveillance, allowing the United States to track the advancement of Sovie

capabilities. The second system, Gambit 3 was equipped with the K

system that included a 175-inch focal length camera. The system was f

in 1966 and provided the U.S. with exquisite surveillance capabilities fro

nearly two decades. The NRO launched a final system, codenamed 

1971 to improve upon Corona’s capability to search broad and wide d

for threats to the United States. The system sometimes carried a mapp

to aid in U.S. military war planning. The United States depended on these 

surveillance satellites to understand the capabilities, intentions, and ad

of those who opposed the United States during the Cold War. Together th

America’s essential eyes in space. 
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE

BPO/CSNR, 14675 Lee Road, Chantilly, VA 20151-1715

703-488-4733 

csnr@nro.mil

Se
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.597 Dorchester Bay. The draw of the of the William T. Morrisey Boulevard Bridge, mile 0.0, at Boston, shall operate as follows: ( a ) From 7:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic.
( b ) The draw shall open on signal from April 16 through May 31, from 8 a.m. through midnight, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. From midnight through 8 a.m. at least an eight-hour advance notice is required for bridge openings.
( c ) The draw shall open on signal at all times from June 1 through September 30, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) The draw shall open on signal from October 1 through October 14, 8 a.m. through midnight, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. From midnight through 8 a.m. at least an eight-hour advance notice is required for bridge openings.
( e ) The draw shall open on signal from October 15 through April 15, after at least a 24 hours notice is given, except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section.
[CGD01-02-026, 68 FR 59116, Oct. 14, 2003]
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert L. Poley, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended March 31, 2006 report on Form 10-Q/A of Heartland Oil and Gas Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15(e) and 15d - 15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions abut the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors:

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting.



|                |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                |  | 
|                |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Poley                                 
|August 16, 2006 |  |  |  | Robert L. Poley Chief Financial Officer and
Director
Exhibit
23.2
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEER
 
 As
independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the use of our name
included herein or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K by McMoRan
Exploration Co. and to the reference to our estimates of reserves and present
value of future net reserves as of December 31, 2004, into McMoRan Exploration
Co.’s previously filed Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-95195
and 333-108408), on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-57484, 333-67485, 333-87380,
333-90170, 333-105533 and 333-115335).
 
 RYDER
SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
 PETROLEUM
ENGINEERS
 
 Houston,
Texas
 March 14,
2005
#### § 779.19 Employer, employee, and employ.

The Act's major provisions impose certain requirements and prohibitions on every “employer” subject to their terms. The employment by an “employer” of an “employee” is, to the extent specified in the Act, made subject to minimum wage and overtime pay requirements and to prohibitions against the employment of oppressive child labor. The Act provides its own definitions of “employer,” “employee”, and “employ”, under which “economic reality” rather than “technical concepts” determines whether there is employment subject to its terms (*Goldberg* v. *Whitaker House Cooperative,* 366 U.S. 28; *United States* v. *Silk,* 331 U.S. 704; *Rutherford Food Corp.* v. *McComb,* 331 U.S. 722). An “employer”, as defined in section 3(d) of the Act, “includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee but shall not include the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State (except with respect to employees of a State or a political subdivision thereof, employed (a) in a hospital, institution, or school referred to in the last sentence of subsection (r) of this section, or (b) in the operation of a railway or carrier referred to in such sentence), or any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer), or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization”. An “employee”, as defined in section 3(e) of the Act, “includes any individual employed by an employer” (except that the term is further qualified for purposes of counting man-days of employment by an employer in agriculture). “Employ”, as used in the Act, is defined in section 3(g) to include “to suffer or permit to work”. It should be noted, as explained in the interpretative bulletin on general coverage, part 776 of this chapter, that in appropriate circumstances two or more employers may be jointly responsible for compliance with the statutory requirements applicable to employment of a particular employee. It should also be noted that “employer”, “enterprise”, and “establishment” are not synonymous terms, as used in the Act. An employer may have an enterprise with more than one establishment, or he may have more than one enterprise, in which he employs employees within the meaning of the Act. Also, there may be different employers who employ employees in a particular establishment or enterprise.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Gencor Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ E.J. Elliott                    
|E.J. Elliott                        
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|December 22, 2006                   
|                                    
|/s/ Scott W. Runkel                 
|Scott W. Runkel                     
|Chief Financial Officer             
|                                    
|December 22, 2006
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANTONIO BARBA DUENAS,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-18-00022-CR

Appeal from the

41st District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20100D02223) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible 

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall 

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### REYNALDO RAMOS *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 17363)

Lavery, Landau and Spallone, Js.

Argued February 25

officially released March 14, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






To
the Board of Directors of TC PipeLines GP, Inc., General Partner of TC
PipeLines, LP:






We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-121537 and
No. 333-141488) on Form S-3 of TC PipeLines, LP of our report dated April 23,
2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of TC PipeLines GP, Inc.
as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, which report appears in Exhibit 99.1 to the
Form 10-Q of TC PipeLines, LP dated April 30, 2008.






/s/
KPMG LLP






Chartered
Accountants




Calgary,
Canada


April
30, 2008
#### In the Matter of Charles Gandolfo et al., Appellants, v Franklin E. White, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation, et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 1, 1996;

decided September 19, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismissing respondents’ appeal from Supreme Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and upon the further ground that appellants are not aggrieved by such order; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2022

No. 04-22-00331-CV

IN RE Joe Wayne SUTHERLAND, Rodney Matocha and Tammye Duckworth as Independent 

Co-Executors of the Estate of Hilbur A. Mason and as Independent Co-Administrators with Will 

Annexed of the Estate of Beatrice J. Mason,

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-01-00010-CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

Original Mandamus Proceeding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice 

 Irene Rios, Justice 

 Beth Watkins, Justice 

On June 2, 2022, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion

for stay pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. On June 6, 2022, real party

in interest filed a response to relators’ emergency motion for stay. After considering relators’

petition, emergency motion for stay, and real party in interest’s response to relators’ emergency

motion, this court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires

further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest

may file a response to the petition in this court on or before June 29, 2022. Any such response

must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

We GRANT the emergency motion for stay relief as follows:

1. All proceedings in the Karnes County District Court are STAYED

pending further orders of this court.

2. The trial court’s “Order Granting Injunction and Writ of Prohibition”

signed on February 28, 2022, is STAYED pending further orders of this court.
 It is so ORDERED on June 14, 2022.

 PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: ______________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Notes: 1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010. 2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

§ 1.26-5 Replacement of medals. ( a ) A medal, or a bar, emblem, or insignia in lieu thereof, that is lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect on the part of the person to whom it was awarded by the Coast Guard is replaced without charge by the Coast Guard as authorized in 14 U.S.C. 501.
( b ) A medal, a bar, emblem or insignia in lieu thereof, that is lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use due to the fault or neglect of the person to whom it was awarded, is replaced after the Coast Guard is reimbursed for its cost. Current prices may be obtained from Commander, Personnel Service Center (PSC-PSD-M&A), U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7200, 4200 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 20598-7200.
(Sec. 1, 63 Stat. 537, 545; sec. 6(b)(1), 80 Stat. 937; 14 U.S.C. 501, 633; 49 U.S.C. 1655(b)(1); 49 CFR 1.46(b))
[CGD 72-207R, 37 FR 25167, Nov. 28, 1972, as amended by CGD 85-077, 51 FR 25366, July 14, 1986; CGD 96-026, 61 FR 33662, June 28, 1996; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38427, July 7, 2014]
An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A
              **.gov** website belongs to an official government
              organization in the United States.
        **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A
              **lock** (
              Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Skip to main contentSkip to main navigationGet instructions for navigating this site Announcements A - Z Browse Search
 OAM HomeMaterialsActivity IdeasSocial MediaHistoryOAM History202320222021202020192018Earlier Years
 Go to ACL.gov
 OAM 2022 Social Media
 Social Cover Images
Age My Way, Older Americans Month
Facebook | Twitter
Social Feed Graphics
Click on an image to view/download the high-resolution version or download the full set (.zip).

                    *Last modified on 02/08/2023*
 Back to Top    What We Do and Why We Do It
ACL was created around the fundamental principle that all people, regardless of age or disability, should be able to live independently and fully participate fully in their communities. Learn more about community living.

FacebookYouTubeTwitter x logo  XLinkedInShare on Other PlatformsSite Support
  

        
      Home
                      Accessibility
                      Disclaimers
                      Contact Us
                      Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                      Privacy Policy
                      Site Map
                      Viewers & Players
                      Vulnerability Disclosure PolicyOther ACL Sites
  

        
      Disability Assistance and Information Line
                      Eldercare Locator
                      ElderJustice.acl.gov
                      LongTermCare.gov
                      OlderIndians.govRelated Sites
  

        
      Grants.gov
                      HHS.gov
                      No Fear Act
                      Plain Writing (on HHS.gov)
                      USA.gov
                      WhiteHouse.gov
                      Vote.gov**Sign up for ACL Updates**
Subscribe **
      *Advancing independence, integration, and inclusion throughout life*
        U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Community Living
NO. 07-04-0511-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 16, 2005

______________________________ IN THE MA

TTER OF T HE MARRI AGE OF FREDERICK IRWIN CHADWICK AND TAMMY SUE CHADWICK AND IN THE INTEREST OF C.L.C., A CHILD

_________________________________ FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF LIPSC OMB COUNTY; NO. 03-10 -3797; HO NORABLE STEVEN EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORAND UM OPINION
On February 11, 2005, the appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal i s dis missed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. All costs incurred are a djudged against the party incurring the same. James T. Campbell Justice