alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

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
Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley D. Tilden,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|   |  |                         
|-- |  | ------------------------
|By |  | /s/    Bradley D. Tilden
|   |  | Bradley D. Tilden       
|   |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|   |  | November 7, 2008
§ 3011.401 Materials for which non-public treatment has expired. ( a ) *Expiration of non-public treatment.* Ten years after the date of submission to the Commission, non-public materials shall lose non-public status unless otherwise provided by the Commission.
( b ) *Request for Disclosure of Materials for Which Non-Public Treatment has Expired.* Any person may request that materials for which non-public treatment has expired under paragraph (a) of this section be publicly disclosed. Any part of the request revealing non-public information shall be filed in accordance with subpart B of this part. The request shall identify the materials requested and date(s) that materials were originally submitted under seal. The template Request for Materials for Which Non-public Treatment Has Expired in appendix A to this subpart may be used and modified to comply with this requirement. The request shall be filed in the docket in which the materials were filed or in the docket in which the materials will be used; in all other circumstances, the request shall be filed in the G docket for the applicable fiscal year. All documents are treated in accordance with the Commission's record retention schedule, which may reduce the availability of some non-public information.
( c ) *Response.* A response to the request is due within seven calendar days of the filing of the request, unless the Commission otherwise provides. Any response opposing the request shall seek an extension of non-public status by including an application for non-public treatment compliant with § 3011.201. This extension application shall also include specific facts in support of any assertion that commercial injury is likely to occur if the information contained in the materials is publicly disclosed despite the passage of ten years or the timeframe established by Commission order.
( d ) *Reply.* Within 7 calendar days of the filing of a response, any person (including the requestor) may file a reply, unless the Commission otherwise provides.
( e ) *Non-public treatment pending resolution.* Pending the resolution of the request by the Commission, information designated as non-public will be accorded non-public treatment.
( f ) *Ruling.* The Commission may grant the request at any time after the response period described in paragraph (c) of this section has expired. The Commission may deny the request and enter an order extending the duration of non-public status at any time after the reply period described in paragraph (d) of this section has expired. The determination of the Commission shall follow the applicable standard described in § 3011.104.
[83 FR 31281, July 3, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 9644, Feb. 19, 2020; 88 FR 37474, June 8, 2023]
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5157

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 23 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Received

AN ACT

To amend title 44, United States Code, to ensure

preservation of the records of the Freedmen’s Bureau.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5157 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedmen’s Bureau

3 Records Preservation Act of 2000’’.

4 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF FREEDMEN’S BUREAU

5 RECORDS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 29 of title 44, United

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing:

9 ‘‘§ 2910. Preservation of Freedmen’s Bureau records

10 ‘‘The Archivist shall preserve the records of the Bu11 reau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, com12 monly referred to as the ‘Freedmen’s Bureau’, by using—

13 ‘‘(1) microfilm technology for preservation of

14 the documents comprising these records so that they

15 can be maintained for future generations; and

16 ‘‘(2) the results of the pilot project with the

17 University of Florida to create future partnerships

18 with Howard University and other institutions for

19 the purposes of indexing these records and making

20 them more easily accessible to the public, including

21 historians, genealogists, and students, and for any

22 other purposes determined by the Archivist.’’.

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

24 at the beginning of chapter 29 of title 44, United States
3

HR 5157 RDS

1 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new

2 item:

‘‘2910. Preservation of Freedmen’s Bureau records.’’.

3 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

5 section 2910 of title 44, United States Code (as added

6 by section 2), a total of $3,000,000 for fiscal years 2001

7 through 2005.

Passed the House of Representatives October 19,

2000.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

By MARTHA C. MORRISON,

Deputy Clerk.
#### § 548.402 Applicable overtime provisions.

The application should also contain a description of the terms of employment relating to overtime so that the Administrator can determine how the established basic rate will be used if it is approved. For instance, if the employees are to be paid time and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of 35 each workweek, this should be stated in the application. If the employees are to be paid double time for work on Sundays the application should so state.

[20 FR 5683, Aug. 6, 1955]
RECEIVED IN

Jh'"i vouYt of Aopeals

Sixth District

J'JN 2 2 2015 SIXTH DISTRICTCCOURT

OF APPEALS - uia, lexas , "

TYRONE DENART? 'Mf^SM'S^lfr,C

§ N0 °614'00074 DECEIVED IM THE STATE OF TEXAS § ©Ol^OFCRiJWIN/Sjfpp^

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO JUN 26 2015

FILE PETITION FOR DESCRETIONARY AhaQA-,—* x

REVIEW WtoMiObk

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW,TYRONE ANDERSON,PETITIONER,PRO SE,AND FILES THIS

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF SIXTY (60) DAYS IN WHICH TO FILE A

FILED IN

PETITION FOR DESCRETIONARY REVIEW. IN SUPPORT OF THI§otJ8fOTTOIMINAL APPF

APPELLANT WILL SHOW THE COURT THE FOLLOWING: ...m p «TMr

I.

PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED IN THE 354th DISTRICT COURT^HUNT1813' Clerk

COUNTY,TEXAS,OF THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF COCAINE,WITH THE

INTENT TO DELIVER. A JURY SENTENCED APPELLANT TO LIFE. PETITIONER

APPEALED HIS CONVICTION IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS.

THE CASE WAS AFFIRMED ON MAY 28,2015.

II.

PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:

PETITIONER IS ONLY ALLOWED LIMITED TIME IN THE LAW LIBRARY.

PETITIONERS UNIT OF ASSIGNMENT IS ON THE ANUAL LOCK-DOWN WHICH

IMPEDES PETITIONERS RESEARCH AND PREPARATION TIME.

WHEREFORE,PREMISES,CONSIDERED,PETITIONER PRAYS THIS HONORABLE

COURT GRANTS THIS MOTION AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR FILING HIS

PDR BY SIXTY (60) DAYS.IT IS SO PRAYED.

5

S
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED

TYKONE ANDERSON #1944026

BILL CLEMENTS UNIT

9601 SPUR 591

AMARILLO,TEXAS 79107

PETITIONER,PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE FOREGOING

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR DESCRETION

ARY REVIEW HAS BEEN SENT TO THE HUNT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

AT P.O.BOX 441,GREENVILLE TEXAS BY US MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID,

FIRST CLASS ON THIS 5th DAY OF JUNE,2015.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7569

GEORGE R. WERTZ, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEE FOSTER, Sheriff; JERRY WRIGHT; TODD JOHNSON; DANNY GILLIAM; DAVID E. RUSHTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-2858-4-22BE)

Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George R. Wertz, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Spencer Verner, Newberry, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court order granting in part

and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 516

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal banking agencies

from implementing ‘‘know your customer’’ regulations which overburden

financial institutions and invade the privacy of United States citizens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. UPTON, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr.

NETHERCUTT, Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. YOUNG

of Alaska, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. DELAY, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. HALL of

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal

banking agencies from implementing ‘‘know your customer’’ regulations which overburden financial institutions and invade the privacy of United States citizens.

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 ‘‘ ‘Know Your Customer’

5 Sunset Act’’.
2

•HR 516 IH

1 SEC. 2. IMMEDIATE TERMINATION OF ‘‘KNOW YOUR CUS2 TOMER’’ REGULATIONS.

3 Any regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the

4 Treasury or any Federal banking agency (as defined in

5 section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) under

6 subchapter II or III of chapter 53 of title 31, United

7 States Code, chapter 2 of Public Law 91–508, section 21

8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or any other provi9 sion of Federal law, that has the effect of requiring a de10 pository institution (as defined in section 3 of the Federal

11 Deposit Insurance Act) or any other private entity—

12 (1) to monitor the account of any customer of

13 the institution or entity; or

14 (2) to obtain information concerning any person

15 in connection with a financial transaction at the in16 stitution or entity, including the source of any funds

17 involved in the transaction,

18 (commonly referred to as ‘‘know your customer’’ regula19 tions) shall cease to be effective as of the date of the enact20 ment of this Act and no such regulation may be prescribed

21 after such date.

Æ
#### § 601.100 Purchasing policy.

The Postal Service acquires property and services pursuant to the authority of 39 U.S.C. 410.
(816) 983-8000 7/16/2014 3:04:39 PM PAGE 1/002 

### Husch Blackwell LLP

Thomas L. Gemmell _Partner 120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200 Chicago, _IL**60()06~391;!** Diret:.t: 312.526.1523 Fax.: 312,655.1501 tom,gemmcll@huschblackwell.com David C,**Age~** .Partner 901 St. Louis**Stn:~et,** Suite 1800 Springfield, Mo**6_5tl(l6~2540** Direc.t: 417.268-.4066 Fax: 417)68.4040**david.~cc@huscbhlack\:~,'e{l.com**

July 15, 2014

Via Facsimile 202.493.2251 

### Docket Management l<'acility U.S. DepartmMt ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12··140 \Vashington, DC 20590 Re: Docket No.**FAAN2014~0352** To \Vhom It May Concern: This comment is being submitted in connection with th_e various film industry petitions submitted under Scctioil333 of

### the .FAA 1v1odernization and 

### Reform Act of20l2. We wish 

### to voice our support for the exemptionprocess to permit commercial operation o:funmanned aircraft systems (UAS). While**th~re** are legitimate concerns regarding the use ofUAS, the· tccbnol()gy is here to stay and it should be allowed when cow..merci,tl busines;>es cHn dem:onstrate parameters to ensure safe operations. 

### Our firm, Busch Blackwell LLP, represents various entities.across a \Viele r-ange of industries, such as agriculture, ene-rgy, construction, real estate, and many othet·s. As the tech.nology is advancing, th9se industries arc tinding applkations for UAS ·to allow them to more eHlciently and more 

### safety conducttheir operations. Vle support a process, such as thcinstatlt petitions for exemption.• that would allow commcrcia.l businesses to take advantage of technology afibrded by UAS when it can be demonstrnied that the proposed applic-ation ofUAS ·will be 

### o.perated in a 

### sate manner. In this regard,. 

### it ls ofthe utmost hilporta.."lce to everyone that all aircraft (manne.d and unmanned) operatein a manner that does not compromise the safety ofthe national 

### airspace system (NAS). Ifa commercial business is able to show that a proposed use ofUAS v.rill not coiU:promise the. safety ofthe**NAS~** or persons or property on the grmmd, then itwould. seem acceptable to allow such operations. \Vhile we tmderstand the constraints on the timing ofthe rulemaking process, \Ve believe the granting ofpetitions for exemption u11der Se<:;tion 333 would

q-u:35020-1 1-lllsch Blac.kwell LLP(816) 983-8000

July 15, 2014 Page2 7/16/2014 3:04:39 PM PAGE 2/002 

### Husch Blackwell LLP

permit the FAA to use the tools that it 

### c.ttrrently has at its 

### disp{)Sal to allow safe 

### c'Onunerc.ial UAS**op~rations.**

TLG:ch

CH1·35020·.1**Re~pect:fully** Slthmitted;.7 

## d ·f

### /'~ (.

..

# </

..... /,, ' . I 

### I ,. ,._.·'l ,1**~t'Ui-{.·:A** ...**_~.-** \.'

.**-r?tf'!z,'t..-~/** 

### I

. ·' I / l -1Javid C. Agee {/ Co-Chair, UAS Practice Team 

### Husch Blackwell L.LP
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5033

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that contain in a single

document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract

provisions and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory

arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a homebuilding purchase contract.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 27, 2000

Mr. GONZALEZ (for himself and Mr. RODRIGUEZ) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To prohibit offering homebuilding purchase contracts that

contain in a single document both a mandatory arbitration agreement and other contract provisions and to prohibit requiring purchasers to consent to a mandatory

arbitration agreement as a condition precedent to entering into a homebuilding purchase contract.

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 ‘‘American Homebuyers

5 Protection Act’’.
2

•HR 5033 IH

1 SEC. 2. MANDATORY ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—No person engaged in the con3 struction of new houses may require a purchaser to enter

4 into a mandatory arbitration agreement as a condition

5 precedent to entering into a contract for the purchase of

6 a new house.

7 (b) SEPARATE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.—No person

8 engaged in the construction of new houses may offer a

9 purchaser a contract for the purchase of a new house

10 which includes an agreement on mandatory arbitration

11 unless such agreement is a separate document which con12 tains only language pertaining to the mandatory arbitra13 tion agreement. The separate document containing the

14 mandatory arbitration agreement shall also contain the

15 following statement: ‘‘By Agreeing to Binding Arbitration

16 You Are Giving Up Your Right To Go To Court’’.

17 (c) ARBITRATOR.—The mandatory arbitration agree18 ment shall not name an independent arbitrator and shall

19 contain a procedure that adequately guarantees the pur20 chaser an opportunity to participate in the selection of an

21 arbitrator which shall occur only after a dispute regarding

22 the homebuilding contract has arisen.

23 (d) ENFORCEMENT.—If any person violates sub24 section (a), (b), or (c), the agreement on mandatory arbi25 tration will be of no effect.

Æ
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEnergy efficient engine high-pressure turbine component rig performance test reportA rig test of the cooled high-pressure turbine component for the Energy Efficient Engine was successfully completed. The principal objective of this test was to substantiate the turbine design point performance as well as determine off-design performance with the interaction of the secondary flow system. The measured efficiency of the cooled turbine component was 88.5 percent, which surpassed the rig design goal of 86.5 percent. The secondary flow system in the turbine performed according to the design intent. Characterization studies showed that secondary flow system performance is insensitive to flow and pressure variations. Overall, this test has demonstrated that a highly-loaded, transonic, single-stage turbine can achieve a high level of operating efficiency.Document ID19850021643Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLeach, K. P.*(Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Group East Hartford, CT, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1983Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-168189NAS 1.26:168189PWA-5594-243Accession Number85N29955Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS3-20646Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850021643.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Page 1 of 1

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION

MONTANA SUPREME COURT

P.O. Box 203003

Helena, MT 59620-3003

406-444-3858

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

TANNER DAVID ALFORD, Cause No. DA 24-0250

ORDER GRANTING 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION

Appellant/Defendant,

-vsSTATE OF MONTANA,

Appellee/Plaintiff.

UPON motion from the Appellant, with good cause appearing therefor, and 

with no objection from the Appellee, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time within which to file his opening brief 

in the above-captioned cause of action is GRANTED.

Appellant shall have until July 1, 2024, to file his opening brief.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BY THE COURT

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

May 15 2024

05/15/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0250
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 117.966 Galveston Channel.

The drawspan for the Pelican Island Causeway Drawbridge across Galveston Channel, mile 4.5 of the Galveston Channel, (GIWW mile 356.1) at Galveston, Texas, must open on signal; except that, from 6:40 a.m. to 8:10 a.m., 12 noon to 1 p.m., and 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the drawspan need not be opened for passage of vessels. Public vessels of the United States must be passed at anytime.

[USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70312, Dec. 4, 2006. Redesignated by USCG-2011-0257, 76 FR 31837, June 2, 2011]
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 Quarterly Report of Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William S. Ayer, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














By   /s/William S. Ayer


William S. Ayer


Chairman & Chief Executive Officer


August 5, 2010
1 Brunner, Christine

From: Sargeant, Kathryn Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 1:11 PM To: Whiteman, Chad Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (R IN 2060-AQ86) Attachments: EPA Response_EO_12866_ Tier 3_Final_Rule_Summary_Co mmentsV2_2_19_2014.docx



### Chad, attached are responses to your comments from last night.

From: Whiteman, Chad [ mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov ] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:57 PM To: Sargeant, Kathryn Subject: EO 12866 Comments on Tier 3 draft final rule (RIN 2060-AQ86)



### Kathryn, Attached are a few comments on the Tier 3 RIA. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Chad
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10129 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SCOTT BRIAN TREMBLAY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-277-2

- - - - - - - - - - August 18, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Scott Brian Tremblay appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon. He argues that the district court erred by not granting his request for a “downward departure” based on minor participation and that the sentencing enhancements he received constitute double counting and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. In his plea agreement, Tremblay waived his right to appeal on these grounds. See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir. 1994). APPEAL DISMISSED.