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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30335

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEXANDER JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-50077-01

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alexander Jackson appeals his conviction by a jury for

being a felon in possession of a firearm. He asserts that the

evidence was insufficient to establish that the item in question

was a “firearm” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). After

reviewing the record and the arguments of counsel, we hold that the

evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the item
2

in question was in fact a “firearm.” See United States v.

Blevinal, 607 F.2d 1124, 1128 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v.

Seastrunk, 580 F.2d 800, 802 (5th Cir. 1978). Consequently, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements No. 333-115606, 333-132197 and 333-13543 onForm S-8 for Tamalpais Bancorp of our report dated March 27, 2009, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of Tamalpais Bancorp and Subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year periodended December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008annual report on Form 10-K of Tamalpais Bancorp. 

/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day& Co., LLP
(75 South. 702)

#### BURK v. STATE.

(8 Div. 494.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

1. Criminal Law <@=>798(1) — Instructions— Doubt of Individual Jurors.

It is not error on the part of the trial court to refuse to charge the jury that it is the duty of-each juror who has a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant not to yield his conviction simply because all the other jurors disagree with him.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1940.]

2. Criminal Law <@=>830 — Instructions— Manner of Request for.

Where a charge states several distinct propositions of law, the court may properly refuse all if any one of them is unsound.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2012, 2017.]

3. Criminal Law <@=>829(1) — Instructions— Manner of Request for.

Where a charge states several distinct propositions of law, the court may properly refuse it if some of them are fully covered by special charges given at the instance of the same party.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2011.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert Coun- . ty; O. P. Almon, Judge.

Aubrey Burk was convicted of crime, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Jackson & Deloney, of Tuscumbia, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

The only questions presented for review arise from the refusal of certain special charges requested by. the defendant.

The refusal of charges 5 and 7 might well be justified on the ground that they are argumentative; however, the principles of law asserted therein were given to the jury in the oral charge of the court; and also in charges 1, 2, and 6, given at the request of defendant.

[1] Charge 2, requested by defendant, undertakes to state six distinct propositions of law, the first of which is thus stated:

> “It is the -duty of each juror to decide the issue for himself; and if there is any juror who has a reasonable doubt of the guilt of defendant, it is his duty to stand by his conviction, and he shohld not yield simply because every other juror may disagree with him.” This is not the law. Troup v. State, 160 Ala. 125, 49 South. 332; Diamond v. State, 15 Ala. App. 33, 72 South. 558.

[2] The first proposition stated in the charge being unsound, the court was under no duty to separate it from the other propositions, and properly refused all. Pearce v. State, 115 Ala. 115, 22 South. 502; McCombs v. State, 151 Ala. 7, 43 South. 965.

[3] Charge 6, refused to the defendant, states seven distinct propositions of lawr, some of which are fully covered by the special charges given at 'defendant’s instance, and the court refused this charge without error. Boyd v. State, 154 Ala. 9, 45 South. 634.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Virtual Cooking Demo 

Checklist for the Moderator

This document is supplemental to the Virtual Cooking Demo Videos. 

Please reference the videos for further details.

In-Advance Preparation:

Create a Zoom event (as a 

recurring meeting)

Select desired Zoom settings

Prepare a flyer

Research information on the 

recipe

Prepare the recipe card

Manage attendance

Practice pronunciation

Watch past demos

1-2 Days Before Demo:

Recipe card upload

Other materials

Morning of Demo:

Log into Zoom early

Enable Closed Captioning

Select other staff to co-host

Mute audio for all who are not 

presenting

Spotlight

Play instrumental music

Remove the waiting room

Conducting the Demo:

Take notes

Attendance

Two cameras

Recording reminder

Live transcript

Recipe card plus recording

Request for feedback and 

pictures

Start recording

Display the flyer

Accessing past demos

Monitor the chat

Screenshots

End recording

Attendance

Shout-outs

Recipe card plus recording

How to unmute

How to raise hands

Post-Cooking Demo Tasks:

Save the recording

Upload cooking demo items

Upload to YouTube and share

Export attendance report

Update cooking demo library

This project was supported in part by grant number 90PPNU0002 from the U.S. Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human 

Services, Washington, D.C. 20201. Grantees undertaking projects with government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their findings and 

conclusions. Points of view or opinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official ACL policy.
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.813 Wappinger Creek.

The draw of the Metro-North Commuter railroad bridge, mile 0.0 at New Hamburg, need not be opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draw shall be returned to operable condition within six months after notification by the District Commander to do so.
§ 155.380 Oily water separating equipment and bilge alarm approval standards. ( a ) On U.S. inspected ships, oily water separating equipment and bilge alarms must be approved under 46 CFR 162.050.
( b ) On U.S. uninspected ships and foreign ships, oily water separating equipment and bilge alarms must be approved under either 46 CFR 162.050 or MARPOL 73/78 Annex I. Note to § 155.380 ( b
):
A copy of Annex I to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, as amended (MARPOL 73/78) may be purchased from the International Maritime Organization, Publications Section, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 75R, United Kingdom, Telex 23588; see also *http://www.imo.org .*
( c ) A ship that is required to have a bilge alarm may defer installment and use a previously installed bilge monitor provided the bilge monitor met Coast Guard approval requirements at the time of its installation and it does not allow more than a 15 ppm oil content in water discharge.
( d ) The accuracy of the bilge alarms must be checked at IOPP Certificate renewal surveys according to the manufacturer's instructions. Alternatively, the unit may be replaced by a calibrated bilge alarm. The calibration certificate for the bilge alarm, which certifies the date of the last calibration check, should be retained onboard for inspection purposes. The accuracy checks can only be done by the manufacturer or persons authorized by the manufacturer.
( e ) Ship staff training must include familiarization in the operation and maintenance of the equipment.
( f ) The routine maintenance of the oily water separating equipment and the bilge alarm must be clearly defined by the manufacturer in the associated operating and maintenance manuals. All routine and repair maintenance must be recorded.
[USCG-2004-18939, 74 FR 3377, Jan. 16, 2009]
#### Zorn *v.*Murray.

Lumpkin, J.

1. While the petition in this ease ma.y have set out an equitable cause of action *(Worthy*v. *Tate,*44 *Ga.*152; *Gilmore*v. *Wells,*78 *Ga.*187; *Brooks*v. *Stroud,*111 *Ga.*875; *Brown*v. *Bonds,*125 *Ga.*833), yet under the evidence, especially that tending to show that the petitioner had attorned to the defendant as his landlord, and had given and paid notes for the rent of the premises involved in the controversy, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the presiding judge in *390refusing an injunction to prevent the landlord from proceeding to dispossess him as a tenant holding over, even if the evidence might have ' authorized him to grant it, and to consolidate the different suits under the equitable petition. *Brown*v. *Bonds,*supra;*Bullard*v. *Hudson,*125 *Ga.*393; *Willis*v. *Harrell,*118 *Ga.*906; *House*v. Oliver, 123 *Ga.*784.

Submitted July 18, 1906.

Decided January 17, 1907.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Spence. Turner superior court. April 10, 1906.

*11. G. McKenzie*and,, *Whipple & McKenzie,*for plaintiff.

*James H. Pate,*for defendant.

2. The case of *National Bank*v. *Cariton,*96 *Ga.*469, did not involve any question of landlord and tenant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, 0. J., absent.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 107 (Friday, June 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35325-35326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13852]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 053000A]


Submission for OMB Review; Proposed Information Collection; 
Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of

[[Page 35326]]

information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Reporting Requirements for Commercial Fisheries 
Authorization under Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    Agency Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0292.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 1,500.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Average Hours Per Response: 9 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: Under provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act (MMPA), owners or operators of commercial fishing vessels must 
report all incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals in 
the course of commercial fishing operations.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions, and 
individuals.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 6066, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0569606b626069686045616a662b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8949d969f9d94959db89c979bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 25, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-13852 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 110.72c Lake Murray, S.C. ( a ) The area beginning at the 125 foot pier of the Columbia Sailing Club, approximately latitude 34°03′51′′ N., longitude 81°13′37′′ W.; thence 167° to latitude 34°03′43.6′′ N., longitude 81°13′39.2′′ W.; thence easterly to latitude 34°03′45′′ N., longitude 81°13′32.1′′ W.; thence 347° to the shoreline, thence along the shoreline to the beginning.
[CGD 77-189, 43 FR 14470, Apr. 6, 1978]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo PRESTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-2364.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 3, 2004.

Michael C. Leibson, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ray E. Richards, III, Southfield, MI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GIBBONS, COOK, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

*737PER CURIAM.

Leo Preston appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He argues law enforcement officers’ failure to serve him with the search warrant before commencing a search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Criminal Rule 41(d). We affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Our study of the appellate record, the applicable law, and the parties briefs, convince us that the officers did not violate Preston’s Fourth Amendment rights. “[N]either the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the executing officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the search.” *Groh v. Ramirez,*— U.S. -, -n. 5, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 1292 n. 5, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Preston’s motion to suppress.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:22-CV-61553-DIMITROULEAS/HUNT

CRUZ VALDIVIESO FIGUERA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALL VIP CARE INC. AND LIZ 

VELAZQUEZ MCKINNON,

Defendants.

______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND1 AMENDED NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

Plaintiff, Cruz Valdivieso Figuera, through her undersigned counsel, requests this Court

to grant her an extension of time nunc pro tunc to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment and Statement of Material Facts based on the following:

1. This Court’s scheduling order set a deadline of July 18, 2023 for substantive pretrial 

motions. [ECF No. 20].

2. Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61], and 

corresponding Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 62] on July 18, 2023.

3. On July 19, 2023, this Court struck the Plaintiff’s summary judgment filings because 

the Statement of Material Facts did not comply with the criteria set forth in the 

Southern District of Florida’s Local Rules. [ECF No. 63].

4. Plaintiff corrected the issues cited in the Order at ECF No. 63, and requests that she 

be allowed to refile them for this Court’s consideration. 

1 Plaintiff asks this Court to disregard the amended motion filed at ECF No. 69, which incorrectly referenced the 

previously stricken Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Material Facts. 

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2023 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1, I hereby certify that Defendant’s counsel, Randy 

Goldberg, objects to the relief requested in this Motion. 

Respectfully submitted on July 20, 2023.

/s/Toussaint Cummings, Esq.

Toussaint Cummings, Esq. (119877)

toussaint@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Ave.

Suite 770

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Tel: 305.230.4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61553-WPD Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2023 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.560 Security Zone; Christina River, Newport, DE. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a security zone: All waters of the Christina River, from shoreline to shoreline bounded on the east by a line drawn from 39°42.55′ North Latitude (N), 075°35.88′ West Longitude (W), thence southerly to 39°42.50′ N, 075°35.87′ W thence along the Christina River in a westerly direction and bounded by the South James Street Bridge at 39°42.63′ N, 075°36.53′ W. These coordinates are based on North American Datum 83 (NAD83).
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section— *Designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) in the enforcement of the security zone.
*Official patrol vessel* means any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, State, or local law enforcement vessel assigned or approved by the COTP.
*USSS protectee* means any person for whom the United States Secret Service (USSS) requests implementation of a security zone in order to supplement protection of said person(s).
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) In accordance with the general regulations contained in § 165.33, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Delaware Bay, or designated representative.
( 2 ) Only vessels or people specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or designated representative, may enter or remain in the regulated area. To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 13 or 16. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. No person may swim upon or below the surface of the water of this security zone unless authorized by the COTP or his designated representative.
( 3 ) Upon being hailed by an official patrol vessel or the designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to comply with lawful direction may result in expulsion from the regulated area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
( d ) *Enforcement.* This security zone will be enforced with actual notice by the U.S. Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as other methods listed in § 165.7. The Coast Guard will enforce the security zone created by this section only when it is necessary for the protection of a USSS protectee traveling across the route 141 bridge in Newport, Delaware. The U.S. Coast Guard may be additionally assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
[USCG-2021-0131, 86 FR 40152, July 27, 2021]
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2556-000]

Kansas City Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2000, Kansas City Power & Light Company 
(KCPL), tendered for filing Service Agreements dated May 9, 2000, 
between KCPL and Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. (Powerex).
    KCPL proposes an effective date of May 10, 2000, and requests a 
waiver of the Commission's notice requirement to allow the requested 
effective date. This Agreements provide for the rates and charges for 
Non-Firm and Short-term Firm Transmission Service.
    In its filing, KCPL states that the rates included in the above-
mentioned Service Agreement are KCPL's rates and charges in the 
compliance filing to FERC Order 888-A in Docket No. OA97-636-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 12, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14135 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### § 127.1401 General.

Each operator of a waterfront facility handling LHG must ensure that all cargo handling equipment is operable, and that no equipment that may cause the release or ignition of LHG is used in the marine transfer area for LHG.

[CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995, as amended by USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwest Montana Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge National Forest's Southwest Montana Resource Advisory 
Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 14, 2011, from 9 a.m. until 
5 p.m., in Dillon, Montana. The purpose of the meeting is to review 
funding proposals for Title II funding.

DATES: Wednesday, September 14, 2011, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest 
Headquarters located at 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, Montana (MT 59725).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patty Bates, Committee Coordinator, 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 
59725, (406) 683-3979; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfafbdbeabbaac9fb9acf1b9babbf1aaac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3c3d1d2c7d6c0f3d5c09dd5d6d79dc6c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda for this meeting includes discussion 
about new project proposals seeking funding. The meeting is open to the 
public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee throughout the meeting.

     Dated: August 15, 2011.
David R. Myers,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2011-21358 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>