alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
504 P.2d 507

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Paul Leslie LAING, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 430.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B.

Dec. 21, 1972.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender, by James H. Kemper, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.

JACOBSON, Judge.

Defendant Paul Leslie Laing has appealed his conviction and sentence, following his plea of guilty, to the crime of involuntary manslaughter.

The only issue raised on appeal which, it is alleged, invalidates the plea of guilty was the failure of the trial court to explain to the defendant the elements of the crime of involuntary manslaughter. We have held on numerous occasions that such an explanation is not required if the court, prior to sentencing satisfies itself that the factual basis for the plea establishes the crime charged and that factual basis appears in the record. State v. Schulenberg, 18 Ariz.App. 453, 503 P.2d 411 (filed November 28, 1972); State v. McCallister, 107 Ariz. 143, 483 P.2d 558 (1971) ; State v. Brown, 15 Ariz.App. 48, 485 P.2d 872 (1971). The record before this court adequately reflects such a factual basis. State v. Rowe, 109 Ariz. 12, 503 P.2d 960 (filed December 6, 1972).

We have reviewed the record for any fundamental error and have found none.

Judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

HAIRE, C. J., Division 1, and EU-BANK, J., concur.
408P15

#### State v. Marty Allan Lewis

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-408)

Denied
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 799 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 799

   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To declare certain Amerasians to be citizens of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN AMERASIANS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, or any other provision of law, each eligible alien (as 
defined in subsection (b)) is declared to be a citizen of the United 
States as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Definition.--For purposes of this Act, the term ``eligible 
alien'' means an alien--
            (1) having the status of an alien lawfully admitted for 
        permanent residence (as defined in section 101(a) of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) before the 
        date of the enactment of this Act;
            (2) who was granted that status when the alien was under 
        the age of nine years; and
            (3) who--
                    (A)(i) was granted that status pursuant to a 
                petition filed under section 204(f) of such Act (8 
                U.S.C. 1154(f)) (or any predecessor provision); and
                    (ii) was adopted by a United States citizen; or
                    (B)(i) was admitted to the United States under 
                section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export 
                Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
                1988 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note);
                    (ii) is an alien described in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
                of such section; and
                    (iii) was adopted by a United States citizen.
                                 <all>
```
§ 302-12.4 To what terms of the RSC contract am I required to agree? Your agency determines the contract terms to which you will be required to agree. Examples of these contract terms may include, but are not limited to, the following: ( a ) You will participate in counseling provided by the RSC;
( b ) You will seriously consider any bona fide offer that you receive during the minimum marketing period;
( c ) As a precondition of using its relocation services, you will complete and submit a disclosure form to the RSC to provide thorough information about the age and condition of your home and its systems.
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18343, Apr. 1, 2011]
No. 11-984.

#### GEO Foundation, Ltd. *v.*Costco Wholesale Corp. et al.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 198-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2023 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF** **CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER** **AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO** **18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      the Annual Report of NextPhase Wireless, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for
      the year ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
      information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.








Dated:  July
      16, 2007








/s/Robert
      Ford


Robert
      Ford


Chief
      Executive Officer




/s/
      David P. Noyes


David
      P.
      Noyes


Chief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6936

In Re: MILTON J. TAYLOR,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-99-615-AM)

Submitted: October 20, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton J. Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Milton Taylor, a federal prisoner, petitions for a writ of

mandamus. Taylor contends that his sentence exceeds the statutory

maximum attendant to his crime of conviction because when his

three-year term of supervised release is added to his 27-month term

of imprisonment, the aggregate sentence exceeds the five-year

maximum sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (1994). He seeks an order

compelling the district court to grant relief on his sentence.

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a

drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary situations.

See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In

re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be

used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers,

595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

To the extent that Taylor seeks review of district court’s

non-dispositive orders in his pending habeas corpus petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), his mandamus petition must be

denied. See id. Further, Taylor does not have a clear right to

the relief sought. The sentencing court clearly had the authority

to impose a term of supervised release over and above any term of

imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(a) (West Supp. 1999), so

Taylor’s claim of error is meritless.
3

We deny the mandamus petition and Taylor’s “Motion for an

Emergency Alternative Writ.” Further, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid

the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### § 302-17.53 What happens if I do not file and amend the “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” in a timely manner?

If you don't file the “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” and/or amend it when necessary, your agency will switch to the 2-year process, and because the WTA is an advance of your income tax expenses, you will be liable to repay the full amount of the WTA that your agency has paid to the IRS. See subpart G of this part.
§ 952.4 Office business hours; electronic filing. ( a ) The offices of the officials identified in these rules are located at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.
( b ) The Judicial Officer electronic filing system website is accessible 24 hours a day at *https://usps-judicialoffice.journaltech.com .*
[81 FR 40192, June 21, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 61020, July 30, 2024]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RUSSELL MCMILLAN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3744

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 9, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge.

Russell McMillan, pro se. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
* 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. 07-51319 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ERNESTO PACHECO-SANCHEZ, also known as Eufemio Espinoza-Barron Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1639-ALL
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ernesto Pacheco-Sanchez appeals his 34-month sentence following his guil ty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court enhanced Pacheco’s sentence by eight levels because it determined that his sec

ond state-law conviction for possession of a controlled substance qualified as an “aggravated felony” under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51319

2 Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and
an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the guidelinesentencing range for use in deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). In that respect, its application of the gui delines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. E .g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008); U nite d States v. Villegas, 404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 2005). Pacheco contends that, in the ligh t of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), his second state-law conviction does not qualify as an aggravated felony. Pursuant to U nited States v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 334-36 (5th Cir. 2008), Lopez has not altered our holding in United States v. Sanchez-Vil lalobos, 412 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2005), that a second state conviction for simple possession qualifies as an aggravated felony sufficient to support the imposition of the eight-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). AFFIRMED.
#### § 952.3 Informal dispositions.

This part does not preclude the disposition of any matter by agreement between the parties either before or after the filing of a complaint when time, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131491 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131491 COA: 258671 Macomb CC: 2004-000594-FC DAVID NATHANIEL HOLLOWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-24066-KMM

GRACE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF MIAMI,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.8, Plaintiffs give notice of these authorities supporting their 

arguments in ECF 83 at 5–8 and ECF 84 at 3–10:

1. S.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Alexander, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 118775, at 

*14 (D.S.C. Jan. 6, 2023) (enjoining elections under a racially gerrymandered congressional 

redistricting plan “until a constitutionally valid apportionment plan is approved by this Court,” 

noting “it is well settled that the legislature should be given a reasonable opportunity to recommend 

for consideration a remedial plan that meets constitutional standards,” and “provid[ing] the 

Defendants the opportunity to submit a remedial plan to the Court”), appeal filed and prob. juris. 

noted, 143 S. Ct. 2456.

2. S.C. State Conf. of NAACP v. Alexander, No. 3:21-cv-3302 (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2023), 

ECF 501 at 2 (extending the legislature’s deadline to enact and submit a remedy and noting “[t]he 

Court intended thereafter to allow the parties to comment upon the legislature’s proposed remedial 

plan, produce evidence in support of their respective positions, offer other plans if they desired, 

and conduct an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, as necessary, prior to the adoption of a 

remedial plan”).

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

In compliance with Local Rule 7.8, this notice contains 199 words.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July, 2023,

/s/ Nicholas L.V. Warren

Nicholas L.V. Warren (FBN 1019018)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

336 East College Avenue, Suite 203

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(786) 363-1769

nwarren@aclufl.org

Daniel B. Tilley (FBN 102882)

Caroline A. McNamara (FBN 1038312)

ACLU Foundation of Florida

4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400

Miami, FL 33134

(786) 363-2714

dtilley@aclufl.org

cmcnamara@aclufl.org

Neil A. Steiner*

Dechert LLP

jree Bryant Park

1095 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

(212) 698-3822

neil.steiner@dechert.com

Christopher J. Merken*

Dechert LLP

Cira Centre

2929 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 994-2380

christopher.merken@dechert.com

* Admitted pro hac vice

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 2 of 2
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 778

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require the use of recycled

materials in the construction of Federal-aid highway projects.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to require the

use of recycled materials in the construction of Federalaid highway projects.

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

3 SECTION. 1. AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE USE OF RECYCLED

4 MATERIALS.

5 The Secretary of Transportation may issue regula6 tions requiring the use of recycled materials in the con7 struction of any Federal-aid highway.

Æ
#### William H. Rightmire v. Henry H. Hunteman et al.

Filed October 2, 1894.

No. 5241.

1. Review: Admission oe Incompetent Evidence: Harmless Error. A judgment will not be reversed because of the admission of incompetent evidence, where no possible prejudice resulted.

2. -. The evidence *held*sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Error from the district court of Platte county. Tried below before Post,-J. '

*I. L. Albert*and *Whitmoyer & Gondring,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. G.*Reeder, *contra.*

Irvine, C.

The defendants in error sued the plaintiff in error for building materials sold and delivered. The plaintiff in error interposed a counter-claim for damages caused by defective material and delay in delivering the same. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendants in error for 1980.47.

Error is assigned on the admission in evidence of two papers, designated Exhibits “A” and “B.” Exhibit A is not made a part of the bill of exceptions and for that reason the assignment of error in relation thereto would have to be disregarded. Exhibit B is simply a list of the material sued for in the second count of the petition. The answer expressly admits the contract for this particular material, the only issue raised being as to the fact- of its delivery and as to its character. This list could have no influence on the determination of this issue; and whether or *120not it was competent, its admission could not have been prejudicial. It would seem from the general testimony that Exhibit A was a similar list of other material, and the same remarks would be applicable to it.

The principal assignment of error is that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence and that it is excessive. It is admitted that the defendants in error were entitled to-some judgment against the plaintiff in error, but it is urged that the judgment rendered was too large. No question of law is involved in this assignment, and it would be useless to state the evidence in the opinion. It has been examined and found to be conflicting, with sufficient evidence on behalf of the defendants in error to forbid our disturbing the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Post, J., not sitting.
#### § 301-10.141 Must I provide any special certification or documents if I use a foreign air carrier?

Yes, you must provide a certification, as required in § 301-10.142 and any other documents required by your agency. Your agency cannot pay your foreign air carrier fare if you do not provide the required certification.

[FTR Amdt. 74, 63 FR 63419, Nov. 13, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 108, 67 FR 57964, Sept. 13, 2002]
419P15

#### State v. Emile George Fryou

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-1168)

1. Denied

2. State’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed as moot
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 560 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 560

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 1999

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at the intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San Juan, 
Puerto Rico, as the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at the 
intersection of Comercio and San Justo Streets, in San Juan, Puerto 
Rico, shall be known and designated as the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal 
Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Jose V. Toledo Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 102-75.105 What responsibility does the Department of the Interior have if it determines that minerals in the land are unsuitable for disposition under the public land mining and mineral leasing laws? In such cases, the Department of the Interior must— ( a ) Notify the appropriate GSA Regional Office of such a determination; and
( b ) Authorize the landholding agency to identify in the Standard Form 118 any minerals in the land that the Department of the Interior determines to be unsuitable for disposition under the public land mining and mineral leasing laws.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 20, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|               |  |                            
|               |  | Marc N. Teal               
|               |  | Principal Financial Officer
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.