alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dayl Jean FLOURNOY, Appellant, v. Owen W. KILDAY, Sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Appellee.

No. 17357.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1958

Joe Burkett, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.

Arthur A. Domangue, San Antonio, Tex., Hubert Green, Jr., Criminal Dist. Atty., Bexar County, Tex., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, JONES and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a denial of application of writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner challenges his confinement since July 25, 1956, under an order of the District Court of Bexar County, 73rd *910Judicial District of Texas, holding him in contempt of court. The order was that petitioner be committed until he purged himself by answering questions propounded to him by the Court as to the whereabouts of his minor child and compliance with a simultaneous order to produce the child for that hearing. What the proceedings were, how and in what manner the rulings and orders here under attack came about are set forth in detail in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas, Ex parte Flournoy, Tex.1958, 312 S.W.2d 488. The Texas Court determined that neither Texas nor Federal Constitutional rights of the petitioner were denied to him. Our inquiry is confined to the denial of Federal Constitutional rights. As to that we agree with the action and decision of the Texas Court. Neither in these proceedings summarized in the opinion nor in the hearing concerning them held by the District Court below has petitioner demonstrated the denial of any Federally guaranteed Constitutional right. The judgment is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 14

- 00554

- CV

IN RE LIFECELL CORPORATION

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 5, 2014

, relator LifeCell Corporation filed a petition for writ of mandamus and

a n emergency motion for temporary relief. The court has considered the petition for writ of

mandamus and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the

petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for tem porary relief are denied

. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CI10718, styled LifeCell Corporation v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.

and Novadaq Corp. , pending in the 166th Judicial Distri ct Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Peter A. Sakai

presiding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT, 

MARIEL TOLLINCHI, 

REGINE MARIE RENE, 

BRIANNA MONIQUE GAYLE, 

and MAURICE SHAZIER, 

Defendants. 

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

The United States respectfully requests that the Court ask the following questions, in 

addition to its standard questions, during voir dire of the jury panel: 

(1) Do you or a family member own a small business? 

(2) Have you or a family member applied for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) 

Loan and/or an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL)? 

a. If so, were the loans received? 

b. If yes, what were the amounts of the loans? 

Respectfully submitted, 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

By: s/ Marc Osborne 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Court ID# A5500796 

99 Northeast 4th Street 

Miami, Florida 33132-2111 

Tel: (305) 961-9198 

Fax: (305) 530-7976 

marc.osborne@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 1 of 2
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 15, 2022, a copy of this pleading was filed 

and served via CM/ECF upon counsel for the defendant. 

 s/Marc Osborne 

MARC OSBORNE 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 95 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2022 Page 2 of 2
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 4, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2291

Lower Tribunal No. F18-9894

________________

Alfton McKay,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo 

Orshan, Judge.

Alfton McKay, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Argued and submitted August 28,

remanded for resentencing in part; otherwise affirmed September 30, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*CARL DAVID CHRISTMAN, *Appellant.*

(90-CF-42; CA A70727)

838 P2d 1087

Eric R. Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Mary H. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem. ,

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

De MUNIZ, J.

*366De MUNIZ, J.

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, ORS 163.125, failure to perform the duties of a driver to an injured person, ORS 811.705, three counts of recklessly endangering another person, ORS 163.195, and reckless driving. ORS 811.140.1 The trial court pronounced the sentencing guidelines unconstitutional and refused to follow them. The state agrees with defendant that the court erred and that the sentences for manslaughter and failure to perform the duties of a driver must be remanded for resentencing under the guidelines. *State v. Spinney,*109 Or App 573, 820 P2d 854 (1991), *rev dismissed*313 Or 75 (1992); *see also State v. Evans,*115 Or App 392, 838 P2d 1086 (1992).

Defendant also argues that the court erred in sentencing him to one year in jail on the conviction for recklessly endangering, a misdemeanor. Oregon Laws 1989, chapter 790, section 51, as amended by Oregon Laws 1991, chapter 830, section 9, provides that the maximum term of jail incarceration for a misdemeanor committed on or after November 1, 1989, shall not exceed six months unless the sentencing judge finds substantial and compelling reasons to impose a longer term. Defendant argues that the court did not make the required findings. However, he did not object at the time of sentencing, and the sentence imposed is within the limit for a misdemeanor sentence under ORS 161.615. The error, if any, is not apparent on the face of the record, ORAP 5.45(2), and we will not address the argument for the first time on appeal. *See State v. Daniel,*115 Or App 177, 836 P2d 1366 (1992).

Remanded for resentencing for manslaughter in the second degree and failure to perform the duties of a driver; otherwise affirmed.

1

 The court merged the reckless driving conviction with the manslaughter conviction.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                                  CERTIFICATION
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
         OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of America Online Latin America, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: April 9, 2003      /s/ Charles M. Herington
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                          Charles M. Herington
                          Chief Executive Officer and President

Dated: April 9, 2003      /s/ Osvaldo Banos
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                          Osvaldo Banos
                          Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 148

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

#### § 148.510 What happens when a petition for exemption involves the interests of an Adjacent Coastal State?

If the petition for exemption concerns an Adjacent Coastal State, the Commandant (CG-5P) forwards the petition to the Governor of the State for the Governor's recommendation.

[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39178, July 1, 2013]
#### E. A. DAWLEY, Jr., Appellant, v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA, a municipal corporation; Thomas F. Maxwell, City Manager, City of Norfolk, Virginia; Calvin H. Dalby, Director of Public Safety, City of Norfolk, Virginia; et al., Appellees.

No. 7687.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 14, 1958.

Decided Oct. 15, 1958.

E. A. Dawley, Jr., Norfolk, Va., in pro. per.

Leonard H. Davis, City Atty., Norfolk, Va. (Virgil S. Gore, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Norfolk, Va., on the brief), for appellees.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and SOPER and HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

E. A. Dawley, Jr., an attorney of the Negro race practicing law at Norfolk, Virginia, seeks in this case a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction restraining the City of Norfolk, Virginia, and certain of its administrative officers from maintaining certain signs in the State courthouse in that city indicating the segregation of the races in the public restrooms maintained in the building for men and women. The District Judge after hearing, without expressing approval of the practice and without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to seek an appropriate remedy in the State court, dismissed the complaint. We think this action was properly taken. Whether or not the Federal court should take cognizance of the case and grant the relief prayed was within the sound discretion of the District Judge sitting in a court of equity. The matter was one which affected the internal operations of the court of the State and within its power to regulate. Under these circumstances, interference on the part of the Federal court was not required and the action of the District Judge in dismissing the case *648was in accord with the principles laid down in Com. of Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U.S. 176, 185, 55 S.Ct. 380, 79 L.Ed. 841.

Affirmed.
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.T08-0988 Safety Zone; Port Arthur Canal, Sabine, Pass, TX. ( a ) *Location.* ( 1 ) The following areas are safety zones: ( i ) Port Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass Liquiefied Natural Gas (LNG), shoreline to shoreline, between a western boundary of 093°55′44′′ N and an eastern boundary of 093°54′36′′ W;
( ii ) Port Arthur Canal in the vicinity of Golden Pass LNG between a western boundary of 093°55′44′′ N and an eastern boundary of 093°54′36′′ W and extending from the south/west shoreline to the near channel limits as charted; and
( iii ) Golden Pass LNG ship mooring basin within the following boundaries: starting on the shoreline west of the mooring basin at position 29°45′57.9′′ N 093°55′39.6′′ W, thence northeast to 29°45′59.25′′ N 093°55′37.5′′ W, thence to position W, thence to the shoreline on the east side of the basin at position 29°45′50.7′′ N 093°55′17.0′′ W. All coordinates based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
( 2 ) Based on the test being performed, the least restrictive exclusion zone will be enforced.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section, *designated representative* means a Coast Guard Patrol officer, 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, Port Arthur, TX (COTP), in the enforcement of the safety zone.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
( 2 ) To seek permission to enter, contact Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Port Arthur on VHF channel 01A, or the COTP's on scene representative on VHF channel 13 or 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
( d ) *Enforcement periods.* The safety zone in paragraph (a) of this section is in effect from January 20, 2023, through December 31, 2024. This section will be subject to enforcement when high pressure tests are being conducted. Mariners will be informed of enforcement zone and enforcement periods by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, VTS Advisory, and the presence of enforcement vessels displaying flashing blue law enforcement lights.
[USCG-2022-0988, 88 FR 1147, Jan. 9, 2023] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: By USCG-2022-0988, 88 FR 1147, Jan. 9, 2023, § 165.T08-0988 was added, effective Jan. 20, 2023 until Dec. 31, 2024.
Editorial Note on Part 159
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

§ 159.4 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Coast Guard must publish notice of change in the Federal Register; and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the Marine Safety Center. Contact Commanding Officer (MSC), Attn: Marine Safety Center, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7430, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7430. You may also contact the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* All approved material is available from the sources indicated in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The material approved for incorporation by reference in this part, and the sections affected, are as follows:
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. ASTM E 11-95, Standard Specification for Wire Cloth and Sieves for Testing Purposes—159.125
[USCG-1999-5151, 64 FR 67176, Dec. 1, 1999, as amended by USCG-2001-9286, 66 FR 33641, June 25, 2001; 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004; USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36286, June 25, 2010; USCG-2014-0410, 79 FR 38439, July 7, 2014; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35083, July 28, 2017]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Bally Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertC. Caller, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  May 12,2008

 
| /s/Robert C.  Caller                                             |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert C. Caller                                                 |
| Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)                    |

 

----
Jeffrey M. Harper 

FAA Office of Regional Counsel 

1601 Lind Avenue Southwest 

Renton, Washington 98057 

T (425) 227-2161 

F (425) 227-1007 

Todd C. Emerson 

Sky West Airlines, Inc. 

444 South River Road 

St. George, Utah 84790 

T (435) 634-3530 

F ( 435) 634-3505 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

RECEIVE]) 

APR- 4 2017 

HEARING DOCK~lr 

FAA DOCKET NOs: 

2012N~060030;2014VVP910006;2012N~060029;2012N~060123;2013N~060083;and 

2015VVP910079 

FD~S NOs: FAA-2014-0322; FAA-2014-0686; FAA-2014-0809; FAA-2014-0810; FAA-2014-

0811; FAA-2016-4267 

The Honorable Douglas ~- Rawald 

COMPLAINANT & RESPONDENT'S JOINT NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASES 

Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties, Complainant and Respondent 

file this joint notice to withdraw the pending six cases before this forum. 

I. On ~arch 31, 2016, the parties jointly moved to stay the proceedings in these 

cases. 

2. By several joint motions of the parties, the above-referenced cases have been 

stayed while the parties negotiated a settlement. 

3. On ~arch 30, 2017, the parties signed a settlement agreement resolving the 

above-referenced cases. 
Accordingly, by and through undersigned counsel, Complainant and Respondent hereby 

withdraw the pending cases before this forum. 

FOR THE FAA: 

.";l JEFFREY M HARPER 

/i 2017.04.03 

'-:t::-' ----:-:-:c:----fQill!l:26:3 9 -0 7'00' Jeffrey M. Harper 

Attorney for Complainant 

Dated: April 3, 2017 

Respectfully submitted, 

Todd C. Emerson 

Attorney for Respondent 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing COMPLAINANT & RESPONDENT'S JOINT NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF CASES has been served via E-mail and Federal Express to the following: 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Datedthis~dayof Upr:[ ,2017.
§ 66.05-100 Designation of navigable waters as State waters for private aids to navigation. In accordance with the procedures contained in § 66.05-10(d), the following navigable waters listed by the State in which they are located, are designated as State waters for private aids to navigation: ( a ) *Arizona.* The portion of Lake Havasu within the State, except that portion within Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
( b ) *Louisiana.* The portion of Toledo Bend Reservoir within the State.
( c ) *Missouri.* Teach water within the State except the: ( 1 ) Mississippi River; and
( 2 ) Missouri River.
( d ) *Montana.* The portion of Missouri River between the U.S. Highway 287 bridge near Townsend and Great Falls including the following impoundments: ( 1 ) Black Eagle Dam Reservoir.
( 2 ) Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
( 3 ) Hauser Lake.
( 4 ) Holter Lake.
( 5 ) Rainbow Dam Reservoir.
( e ) *North Carolina.* Navigable waters within the State not marked with Coast Guard aids to navigation on June 1, 1973.
( f ) *Pennsylvania.* The portion of Youghiogheny River Reservoir within the State. (f-1) *South Carolina.* (1) The portion of Lake Wylie within the State; (2) Lake Marion; (3) Lake Moultrie; and (4) Lake Murray.
( g ) *Texas.* The portion of Toledo Bend Reservoir within the State.
( h ) *Virginia.* ( 1 ) Claytor Lake, on the New River in Pulaski County.
( 2 ) Leesville Lake, on the Roanoke River below Smith Mountain Dam.
( 3 ) The portions of the following reservoirs within the State: ( i ) Gaston.
( ii ) Holston.
( iii ) John H. Kerr.
( iv ) Philpott.
( i ) *Wisconsin.* Navigable waters within the State not marked with Coast Guard aids to navigation as of May 1, 1996.
[CGD 72-154R, 38 FR 33473, Dec. 5, 1973, as amended by CGD 76-015, 41 FR 12879, Mar. 29, 1976; CGD 80-132, 46 FR 27643, May 21, 1981; CGD 98-3604, 63 FR 55947, Oct. 20, 1998; USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24982, May 5, 2004]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36682-36683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14563]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-157-004


Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

June 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2000, Kern River Gas Transmission 
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 912, to be 
effective June 1, 2000.
    Kern River states that the purpose of this filing is to implement a 
negotiated rate transaction between Kern River and Nevada Power Company 
(Nevada Power), and to reflect the revised negotiated rate transaction 
between Kern River and Sempra Energy Trading Corporation (Sempra) in 
the Tariff, in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on 
Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas 
Pipelines.
    Kern River states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
its customers and interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining 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 in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm 

[[Page 36683]]

(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-14563 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAVIER LINAN, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00002-CR

Appeal from the

266th District Court 

of Erath County, Texas1

(TC# CR15071)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Eleventh Court of Appeals. See TEX.R.APP.P. 41.3.