alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-40132 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Eduardo De Jesus Zavala-Maravilla,
Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:20-CR-1795-2

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appo inted to represent Eduardo De Jesus Zavala-Maravilla has moved for le ave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zavala-Maravilla has not filed

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 8, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40132 Document: 00516049050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2021No. 21-40132

2 a response. We have reviewed counsel’ s brief and the rele vant portions of the record reflected therein. We conc ur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issu e for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 21-40132 Document: 00516049050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2021
#### § 301-10.309 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use common carrier transportation or a rental vehicle and I use a POV instead?

You will be reimbursed the applicable POV rate on a mileage basis, plus per diem and related travel expenses, not to exceed the total constructive cost of the authorized method of transportation. Your agency must determine the constructive cost in accordance with § 301-70.105(a).

[88 FR 2845, Jan. 18, 2023]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

 

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certifythat to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1.                  theCompany’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005 (“10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                  theinformation contained in the Company’s 10-Q being filed fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: November 9, 2005 | /s/Anthony R. Fabiano                                     |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Anthony R. Fabiano  President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. andwill be retained by American Science & Engineering, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
§ 304-3.18 What happens if I accept a payment from a non-Federal source that is in violation of this part? If you accept payment from a non-Federal source in violation of this part— ( a ) You may be required, in addition to any other penalty provided by law and applicable regulations, to pay the general fund of the Treasury, an amount equal to any payment you accepted; and
( b ) In the case of reimbursement under paragraph (a) of this section, you will not be entitled to any reimbursement from the Government for your travel expenses that the payment was intended to cover.
#### THE HOWE MACHINE COMPANY, Respondent, *v.*GEORGE R. PETTIBONE, Appellant.

*Service of summons by publication*— vacating *order for*— Due *diligence*— how *it may bepi’oved.*

Upon a motion made on tlie judgment-roll to vacate an order for the service of a summons by publication, and a judgment entered upon such service, on the ground that the affidavit and papers, on which the order was granted, did not show that due diligence had been used to find the defendant within the State, the judgment-roll and the papers attached thereto may be resorted to to sustain the order and prove that due diligence has been used.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order of publication, and the judgment entered herein.

*Rastus A. Ransom,*for the appellant.

*Stephen A. Walker,*for the respondent.

Beady, J.:

The appellant seeks to sustain this appeal upon the ground that the affidavit and papers, upon which the order of publication was made, were insufficient, in a legal sense, to justify the order. He thinks that there was no evidence of due diligence to find him within the State, and his counsel thinks that the judgment-roll and papers attached could not be resorted to for further evidence on that subject, or to sustain the order of publication. The motion was, however, to set aside the order of publication and the judgment, and the order to show cause was granted upon the judgment-roll. It is very clear, therefore, that that document could be resorted to for any purpose connected with the subject, and the order of publication was directly connected with the question presented for consideration.

The court having jurisdiction of the subject, and the affidavit having been declared *prima facie*sufficient to justify the order of publication, any part of the judgment-roll could be employed tc demonstrate that sufficient cause existed when the order was made, *658and tints, by relation, to establish the. justice and propriety of the order made. The affidavit originally presented, though it might, if subjected to technical criticism, be regarded as imperfect, nevertheless justified the conclusion that the defendant had absconded, and, having fled, was beyond the diligence which might otherwise reveal his place of abode or refuge. The plaintiffs were entitled to all the presumptions of secret wandering or abiding which spring from dishonorable flight. The question regarded with both affidavits present makes the charge against the defendant, of absconding with the plaintiff’s moneys, and with intent not to be traced, easy of solution, and leads to no other conclusion than that due diligence within the State would not necessarily disclose his place of abode. The defendant must be regarded as an absconding debtor, and,'therefore, without the pale of strict construction in matters of detail.

"We think the order made was correct, and that it should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and the disbursements of the appeal.

Davis, P. J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., and Beady, J.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**130 KA 08-00621**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARQUES T. CRISLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DUBRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (JOSEPH D. WALDORF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered January 29, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun and other tangible evidence found inside the coat that he discarded while fleeing from the police. We reject that contention. The initial observations of defendant by the police gave rise to an objective, credible reason for approaching him and asking him, in a manner that was “devoid of harassment or intimidation,” where he had been prior to his encounter with the police ( People v De Bour
, 40 NY2d 210, 220; see People v Hollman , 79 NY2d 181, 190-191; People v Moyaho ,12 AD3d 692, 693, lv denied 4 NY3d 766). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his response to the request for that information, coupled with the observation by the police of a bulge in defendant’s pocket that appeared to be consistent with a hidden firearm, provided the police with justification for taking the minimal precautionary measure of asking defendant to remove his hand from his pocket ( see De Bour , 40 NY2d at 221; People v Herold , 282 AD2d 1, 7, lv denied 97 NY2d 682; People v Dawson , 243 AD2d 318, lv denied 91 NY2d 890). We further conclude under the circumstances of this case that the police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to pursue defendant when he immediately fled in response to the request to remove his hand from his pocket ( see People v Cruz , 14 AD3d 730, lv denied 4 NY3d 852; People v Fajardo , 209 AD2d 284, lv denied 84 NY2d 1031; see generally People v Sierra , 83 NY2d**-2- 130 KA 08-00621** 
928, 929), and that the coat was discarded by defendant during that lawful pursuit ( see People v Terry
, 190 AD2d 1064, 1065, lv denied 81 NY2d 1081).

By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his further contention that the court should have adjourned the suppression hearing to enable him to obtain additional evidence to present at the suppression hearing ( see generally People v Campbell , 73 NY2d 481, 486; People v Oliveri
, 49 AD3d 1208, 1209; People v Pryor , 12 AD3d 695, lv denied 4 NY3d 802).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### § 300-80.6 What limits are there to test programs?

When authorized by the Administrator of General Services, the agency may pay any necessary relocation expenses in lieu of payments authorized or required under 5 U.S.C. chapter 57, subchapter II.

[FTR Amdt. 2007-04, 72 FR 51374, Sept. 7, 2007, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-03, 75 FR 58330, Sept. 24, 2010]
No. 11-9393.

#### Alcala-Valadez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000738

20-JUN-2014

08:01 AM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: TERRI FINNEGAN, LEE 

CHAGRA, JR., AND JOANNA 

KRANCHER,

 RELATORS.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00162-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Terri Finnegan, Lee Chagra, Jr., and Joanna Krancher, have filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus against the Honorable Eduardo Gamboa, Judge of the Probate Court No. 2 of 

El Paso County, Texas, asking that we order him to vacate an order entered on April 16, 2014 

denying their motion to compel discovery. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the 

relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance 

Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate 

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 136. We conclude that Relators have failed to 

establish they are entitled to mandamus relief.

August 7, 2014

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

***CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906***

***OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

* *

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., a Massachusettscorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledgeand belief, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|  /s/ Anthony R. Fabiano             |   |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| *Anthony R. Fabiano*                     |   |
| *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |   |
|                                     |   |
| February 23, 2004                        |   |

 

----
### Regional stratigraphy and subsurface geology of Cenozoic deposits, Gulf Coastal Plain, south-central United States

By: R.L. Hosman

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1416G

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 8**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 9**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 10**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 11**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 12**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 13**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 14**                            (pdf) 
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Regional stratigraphy and subsurface geology of Cenozoic deposits, Gulf Coastal Plain, south-central United States(1991)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**WILLIAM DICKS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 69 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 7th day of July, 2015, the Application to File Reconsideration of** 

**Denial of Allowance of Appeal Out of Time is** DENIED

**.**
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-812.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

POLLUTION 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Signed at Tortola August 12, 2004 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Pollution 

 Agreement signed at Tortola August 12, 2004; 

 Entered into force August 12, 2004.
051P16

#### State v. Kelvin W. Sellers

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP16-65)

Dismissed

Ervin, J.,

recused
ACCEPTED

12-14-00232-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/8/2015 1:46:09 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/8/2015 1:46:09 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
#### § 304-3.1 To whom do the pronouns “I”, “you”, and their variants refer throughout this part?

Use of pronouns “I”, “you”, and their variants throughout this part refers to the employee.
Exhibit 13.2


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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of NICE-Systems Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dafna Gruber, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, 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.
 
 March 31, 2010
  By:
/s/ Dafna GruberDafna Gruber, Chief Financial Officer
#### § 302-2.21 What is a duplicate reimbursement disclosure statement?

A duplicate reimbursement disclosure statement is a written statement signed by you and submitted to your agency. It states that you and/or your immediate family have not accepted, and will not accept, duplicate reimbursement for relocation expenses. Furthermore, it states that, to the best of your knowledge, no third party has accepted duplicate reimbursement for your relocation expenses. The duplicate reimbursement disclosure statement must be incorporated into your service agreement.

[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18336, Apr. 1, 2011. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49644, Aug. 21, 2014]
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 Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 10, 2004 (the Report), I, Robert Essner, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: May 10, 2004

                                By  /s/        Robert Essner
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                               Robert Essner
                                Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22 CR 20452-GAYLES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JUDITH DIANNE PARIS-PINDER

Defendant.

________________________________/

RESPONSE TO PSI

PARAGRAPH 21- It is objected to that the defendant used the monies obtained as a

result of the criminal conduct towards the wedding.

PARAGRAPH 63- It is objected to that the defendant used the monies obtained as a

result of the criminal conduct towards the wedding.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this pleading was forwarded

to the Office of the AUSA Eric Morales vai email eric.morales@usdoj.gov and the

Office of the US Attorney and US Probation , via filing on PACER on this 28TH day

of December 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/Scott Saul________________

Scott Saul, Esq 717525

1351 NW 16th St

Miami Fl 33125

tel (305) 326-9901

Case 1:22-cr-20452-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/29/2022 Page 1 of 1
349P12-2

#### Harold Bright Harris, Jr. v. Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Prisons; Lawrence Parsons

Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

Dismissed 11/30/2015

Ervin, J.,

recused
#### § 304-9.2 May we allow an employee to accept contributions and awards pertaining to training and payments incident to attendance at meetings under this subchapter?

Yes, you may allow an employee to accept contributions and awards pertaining to training and payments incident to attendance at meetings when you specifically authorize them to do so in accordance with OPM guidelines issued under section 401(b) of Executive Order 11348 (see 5 CFR part 410) and section 303(j) of Executive Order 11348 (3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 639). The OPM guidelines may be found at 5 CFR 410.501 through 410.503.
#### § 302-11.307 May I receive an advance of funds for my residence transaction expenses?

No, you may not receive an advance of funds for your residence transaction expenses.
#### § 301-10.102 What class of common carrier accommodations must I use?

For all official travel you must use coach class accommodations, unless your agency authorizes or approves the use of other than coach class accommodations as provided under § 301-10.103.

[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55702, Sept. 12, 2022]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 80 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 80

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the exclusion 
               from gross income for veterans' benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the exclusion 
               from gross income for veterans' benefits.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF VETERANS' BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 134 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain military benefits) is amended 
to read as follows:
    ``(a) General Rule.--Gross income shall not include--
            ``(1) any qualified military benefit, and
            ``(2) any other benefit administered by the Secretary of 
        Veterans Affairs.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1984.
                                 <all>
```