alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51-11.1 Scope and purpose. ( a ) This part sets forth policies and procedures of the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (Committee) regarding the testimony of current and former employees as witnesses and the production or disclosure of Committee documents or information: ( 1 ) In all Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is a party; and
( 2 ) In all Federal and State proceedings in which the United States is not a party, when a demand pursuant to a subpoena, order or request (collectively referred to in this part as a “demand”) of a court or other authority is issued for such material, testimony, or information.
( b ) The Committee intends these provisions to: ( 1 ) Promote economy and efficiency in its programs and operations;
( 2 ) Minimize the possibility of involving the Committee in controversial issues not related to its functions;
( 3 ) Prevent the misuse of the Committee's employees as involuntary expert witnesses for private interests or as inappropriate expert witnesses as to the state of the law;
( 4 ) Maintain the Committee's impartiality among private litigants where neither the Committee nor any other Federal entity is a named party; and
( 5 ) Protect sensitive, confidential information and the deliberative processes of the Committee.
( c ) In providing for these requirements, the Committee does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
( d ) This part provides guidance for the internal operations of the Committee. The procedures specified in this part, or the failure of any Committee employee to follow the procedures specified in this part, are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States.
Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Keo CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHANTY KEO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D083243

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD200761)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed. 

Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

In 2007, a jury convicted Chanty Keo of attempted premeditated 

murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found Keo personally 

discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). 

The jury also convicted him of robbery (§ 211) and found other sentence 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

enhancements to be true. The court sentenced Keo to life in prison 

plus 27 years. 

Keo appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished 

opinion. (People v. Keo (Aug. 25, 2008, D051784).)

In 2023, Keo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. 

The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of 

conviction and jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Keo 

was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the 

victim. The court found the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability 

that was disapproved by section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court found Keo 

was ineligible for relief and denied the petition without first issuing an order 

to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. 

Keo filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to 

identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel 

asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for 

error. We notified Keo that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has 

not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offenses were discussed in our original appeal in this 

case. We will not repeat them here.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and 

asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. 

Although Keo has not submitted any briefing to support his appeal, we have 

independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified 
3

any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel 

has represented Keo on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Keo’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 

is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.
Motions Disposed, Brief Stricken, and Order filed December 18, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00932-CR

____________

SANDRA JEAN MELGAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1435566

ORDER

Appellant filed a brief of more than 97,000 words on December 6, 2018. She 

also filed a motion to exceed the 15,000-word limit of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(B). The motion is DENIED and the brief is STRICKEN. 

Appellant shall file a brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, or a motion to extend time to file such a brief, on or before January 17, 

2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a).
2

On December 13, 2018, the State filed a motion to extend time to file its brief 

pending our resolution of appellant’s motion to exceed the word limits. The State’s 

motion is GRANTED. Subject to any extensions it may be granted, the State’s brief 

will be due 30 days after appellant’s amended brief is filed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Jewell
RECEIVED 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUN 2 5 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HEARING DOCKET 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: FAA Docket No.: FAA-2015-1318 

FOUR STAR CHEMICAL CO., FAA Region: Western-Pacific 

Respondent. Judge: Richard C. Goodwin 

FAA Case No.: 2014NM730053 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT 

To: The Honorable Administrative Law Judge Goodwin and Respondent herein: 

COMES NOW, the Regional Counsel for the Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) through counsel, hereby files this Motion for Withdrawal of Complaint 

and seeks dismissal of this action with prejudice. This motion is based on the fact the parties 

have settled this matter, and an Order Assessing Civil Penalty reflecting said settlement and 

waiver of civil penalty will be issued. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NAOMI TSUDA 

Regional Counsel 

By: 

CO ~y Adolph -== 

General Attorney 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent an original by regular U.S. mail Motion for 

Withdrawal, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn.: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC 430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

And by facsimile and regular U.S. mail to: 

And by facsimile to: 

Dated: June 18,2015 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Tel.: (202) 366-5121 

Fax: (202) 366-7536 

Tiffany Hedgpeth, Esq. 

Edgcomb Law Group, LLP 

333 N. Glenoaks, Suite 610 

Burbank, CA 91502 

Tel.: (818) 861-7618 

Fax: (818) 861-7616 

1(-1£,~ 

/ .. / ... +:7r~=-----Pft Antonia Garcia 

Paralegal 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

Hawthorne, California 

2
§ 51-11.11 Restrictions that apply to released records. ( a ) The General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official records and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or of a confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the General Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, the Committee may condition the release of official records and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.
( b ) If the General Counsel so determines, original Committee records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identity as official Committee records, and they are not to be marked or altered. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes.
**Exhibit 4(c).8.2**    1-3 Strand London WC2N 5EH  John AllanSir John Parker FREngEagle LodgeChairmanWellington Avenue Virginia Waterjohn.parker@ngrid.comSurreyDirect tel+44 (0)20 7004 3010GU25 4QNDirect fax+44 (0)20 7004 3012 Mobile+44 (0)7831 496201   www.nationalgrid.com7 March 2006 Our Reference TJP/NED/PD/03/06**Remuneration Committee – appointment as chairman**This letter confirms your appointment by the Board as chairman of the Remuneration Committee witheffect from 1 March 2006.As chairman of the Remuneration Committee you will receive an additional fee of £12,500 per annumas agreed by the Board.The fee is in additional to your annual retainer fee of £35,000 per annum and does not affect yourBoard attendance fees of £1,500 for meetings in your country of residence and £3,000 for eachoverseas meeting.On a personal note I am delighted that you have accepted this new role on the Board of NationalGrid.Yours sincerely/s/ Sir John Parker    National Grid plcRegistered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EHRegistered in England and Wales, No 4031152
# Comments on: 2021-2282: Scepter Canada, Inc. v. No Spill, LLC
No. 11-8957.

No. 11-9513.

#### Babey *v.*Minnesota et al. Lezdey et ux. *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir.; and

C. A. 11th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pau-peris*denied. Petitioners are allowed until May 14, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION 10-Q



EXHIBIT 31(b)



SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS - CONTINUED

|I, Fred J. Runk, certify that:
|------------------------------
|                              
|1.                            
|                              
|2.                            
|                              
|3.                            
|                              
|4.                            
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|5.                            
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|November 10, 2003             
|                              
|                              
|                              



E-3
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40830

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESSE WADE HALE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:97-CR-42-3

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

August 24, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The court-appointed counsel for Jesse Wade Hale has moved

for leave to withdraw and filed a motion and brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hale has not filed a

response to the instant motion. Our independent review of the

motion, brief, and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004539
<NAME> AIRPLANES LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       19
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   228
<PP&E>                                           4,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              108
<BONDS>                                          3,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,146)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,352
<SALES>                                              5
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   549
<CGS>                                             (32)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    29
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (144)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
373A15

#### State v. Nisandro Conzelez Sanchez

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-1381)

1.-

2. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

2. Allowed
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-1872 and 333-31641) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option
Plan, as amended, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the 1995 Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Option Plan of CyberCash, Inc. and (ii) the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-34303) relating to the Common Stock issuable upon
conversion of the Company's Series C Convertible Preferred Stock, of our report
dated March 13, 1998, except for Note 13, as to which the date is March 16,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CyberCash, Inc.
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1997.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Vienna, Virginia

March 25, 1998





61
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15568]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-136-002]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Filing

June 15, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 12, 2000, El Paso Gas Company (El Paso), 
tendered for filing its report detailing the fuel adjustments made to 
affected shippers on May 11, 2000 for the period February 1, 2000 
through April 30, 2000, in accordance with the provisions of the 
Commission's order issued April 14, 2000 at Docket No. RP00-136-000.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before June 21, 2000. 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. 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 (call 202-208-222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15568 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 301-11.21 Will I be reimbursed for per diem or actual expenses on leave or non-workdays (weekend, legal Federal Government holiday, or other scheduled non-workdays) while I am on official travel? ( a ) In general, you will be reimbursed as long as your travel status requires your stay to include a non-workday, (e.g., if you are on travel through Friday and again starting Monday you will be reimbursed for Saturday and Sunday), however, your agency should determine the most cost effective situation (*i.e.,* remaining in a travel status and paying per diem or actual expenses or permitting your return to your official station).
( b ) Your agency will determine whether you will be reimbursed for non-workdays when you take leave immediately (e.g., Friday or Monday) before or after the non-workday(s).
Note to § 301-11.21 :
If emergency travel is involved due to an incapacitating illness or injury, the rules in part 301-30 of this chapter govern.
[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15961, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2007-05, 72 FR 61537, Oct. 31, 2007]
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50180

Summary Calendar

TERRY L URBINA,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CV-888

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry L. Urbina appeals following the dismissal of her civil rights

complaint against her employer claiming race and gender discrimination and

retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq., and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The district court

held that the complaint was untimely, alleged claims that were unexhausted,

and failed to state an Equal Pay Act claim. Affording liberal construction to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50180

2

Urbina’s pleadings and appellate brief, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520–21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972), we AFFIRM for the following reasons:

1. Urbina failed to show that she perfected service of process on a

managing or general agent or other person authorized to accept service of

process. See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(h). Because the default judgment was not

willful and there was no showing of prejudice to Urbina, the district court

did not abuse its discretion by setting aside the default. See United States

v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 763 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1985).

2. It is undisputed that Urbina filed her complaint 92 days after receiving

the EEOC’s right to sue notice. Urbina’s argument that the 90-day period

for filing her complaint was tolled because of two intervening federal

holidays is without merit. The requirement to file a lawsuit within the 90-

day period is strictly construed and is akin to a statute of limitations. See

Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 379 (5th Cir. 2002); Espinoza

v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 754 F.2d 1247, 1251 (5th Cir. 1985).

3. On appeal, Urbina asserts only conclusory claims of discrimination.

She fails to address the district court’s reasoning that her complaint was

unexhausted because it went beyond the charges made to the EEOC and

that she failed to state a claim under the Equal Pay Act. Those issues are

therefore abandoned due to inadequate briefing. See Yohey v. Collins, 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 301-73.202 Can contract fares be used for personal travel?

No.
No. 11-9464.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 105-74.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the Administrator of General Services determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
No. 10-11250.

#### Elkady *v.*Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 301-50.6 What is an “online self-service booking tool?”

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 77027, Sept. 20, 2024.

An online self-service booking tool is an Internet based system that permits travelers to make their own reservations for transportation (e.g., air, rail, and car rental) and lodging. ETS and some agency TMS's incorporate a self service booking tool.

[FTR Amdt. 2006-04, 71 FR 49375, Aug. 23, 2006]
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, the Vice President,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of American Science &Engineering, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to theundersigned’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/Kenneth J. Galaznik                                     |   |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | Kenneth J. Galaznik  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by AmericanScience & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----