alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RYAN DEON WILLIAMS GOMEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50468

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00425-R

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Ryan Deon Williams Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 41-month sentence for conspiracy to

commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gomez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that

FILED

JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of

record. We have provided Gomez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. The court

has considered Gomez’s pro se letter filed on May 8, 2015.

Gomez waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an

appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Gomez also waived the

right to appeal six specified issues related to his sentence. Our independent review

of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no

arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Gomez’s plea or any

sentencing issue outside the scope of the appeal waiver. We therefore affirm as to

those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal

waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 13-50468
October 24, 2011 

Ms. Anna D. Tague 

40 Singingwood Lane 

Orinda, CA 94563 

Dear Ms. Tague: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your October 11, 2011, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-

1130), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside 

the United States. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-K ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: March 13, 2006

/s/ Thomas G. WiggansThomas G. WiggansChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10(k)3





ALLETE, INC.
Non-Employee Director Compensation
Effective January 1, 2017
    
             
	
		
	Board Retainers (1) (2)
Stock
Cash
	

$77,000
$62,000

	Committee Cash Retainers (1) (2)
Audit
Executive Compensation
Corporate Governance & Nominating
	

$9,000
$7,500
$7,500

	Chair Cash Retainers (1) (2)
Audit
Executive Compensation
Corporate Governance & Nominating
	

$10,000
$7,500
$5,000






	
		
	Lead Director (1) (2) (3)
Board Stock Retainer
Board Cash Retainer
Lead Director Cash Retainer
	

$77,000
$62,000
$25,000










		
	(1) 
	Cash and stock retainers may be deferred under the Director Compensation Deferral Plan II.


		
	(2) 
	Cash retainers may be elected to be received in ALLETE stock.


		
	(3) 
	Lead Director is not eligible for other committee or chair retainers.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY, 

Appellant

v.

GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., LTD., 

Appellee

______________________

2024-1204

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

00632.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 24-1204 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 02/21/2024
NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY V. GUANGDONG OPPO

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 21, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 21, 2024

Case: 24-1204 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 02/21/2024
#### § 51-9.101-5 Safeguarding systems of records.

The Executive Director shall ensure that appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards are established to ensure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained.
#### § 302-2.20 If I have more than one service agreement, must I adhere to each agreement separately?

Yes, service agreements can not be grouped together and must be adhered to separately. Each agreement is in effect for the period specified in the agreement.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49644, Aug. 21, 2014]
No. 11-1124.

#### D’Andrea *v.*Hawaii et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: 2018-1696: Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
No. 11-8961.

#### Jordan *v.*Gwinnett County, Georgia, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9163.

#### Nhieu Huynh *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10897.

#### Key *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
367P15

#### State v. Christopher John Horton

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA (COA12-366)

1. Denied

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

Ervin, J.,

recused
§ 101.151 Use of signal boosters. Private operational-fixed licensees authorized to operate multiple address systems in the 928-929/952-960 MHz and 932-932.5/941-941.5 MHz bands may employ signal boosters at fixed locations in accordance with the following criteria: ( a ) The amplified signal is retransmitted only on the exact frequency(ies) of the originating base, fixed, mobile, or portable station(s). The booster will fill in only weak signal areas and cannot extend the system's normal signal coverage area.
( b ) Class A narrowband signal boosters must be equipped with automatic gain control circuitry which will limit the total effective radiated power (ERP) of the unit to a maximum of 5 watts under all conditions. Class B broadband signal boosters are limited to 5 watts ERP for each authorized frequency that the booster is designed to amplify.
( c ) Class A narrowband boosters must meet the out-of-band emission limits of § 101.111 for each narrowband channel that the booster is designed to amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the emission limits of § 101.111 for frequencies outside of the booster's design passband.
( d ) Class B broadband signal boosters are permitted to be used only in confined or indoor areas such as buildings, tunnels, underground areas, etc., or remote areas, *i.e.,* areas where there is little or no risk of interference to other users.
( e ) The licensee is given authority to operate signal boosters without separate authorization from the Commission. Certificated equipment must be employed and the licensee must ensure that all applicable rule requirements are met.
( f ) Licensees employing either Class A narrowband or Class B broadband signal boosters as defined in § 101.3 are responsible for correcting any harmful interference that the equipment may cause to other systems.
[61 FR 31052, June 19, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 36611, July 7, 1998]
§ 0.181 The Defense Commissioner. The Defense Commissioner is designated by the Commission. The Defense Commissioner directs the homeland security, national security and emergency preparedness, and defense activities of the Commission and has the following duties and responsibilities: ( a ) To keep the Commission informed as to significant developments in the field of homeland security, emergency preparedness, defense, and any related activities that involve formulation or revision of Commission policy in any area of responsibility of the Commission.
( b ) To represent the Commission in public safety, homeland security, national security, emergency preparedness, disaster management, defense and related matters requiring conferences or communications with other governmental officers, departments, or agencies.
( c ) To act as the Homeland Security and Defense Coordinator in representations with other agencies with respect to planning for the continuity of the essential functions of the Commission under emergency conditions.
( d ) To serve as a member of the Joint Telecommunications Resources Board (JTRB).
( e ) To serve as the principal point of contact for the Commission on all matters pertaining to the Department of Homeland Security.
( f ) To take such measures as will assure continuity of the Commission's functions under any foreseeable circumstances with a minimum of interruption. In the event of an emergency, the Defense Commissioner, in consultation with the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, will decide whether to activate the Commission's Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan and/or initiate the Commission's emergency response procedures.
( g ) In the event of enemy attack, or the imminent threat thereof, or other disaster resulting in the inability of the Commission to function at its offices in Washington, DC, to assume all of the duties and responsibilities of the Commission and the Chairperson, until relieved or augmented by other Commissioners or members of the staff, as set forth in §§ 0.186 and 0.383.
( h ) To approve national emergency plans and develop preparedness programs covering: provision of service by common carriers; broadcasting and cable facilities, satellite and the wireless radio services; radio frequency assignment; electromagnetic radiation; investigation and enforcement.
( i ) To perform such other duties and assume such other responsibilities related to the Commission's defense activities as may be necessary for the continuity of functions and the protection of Commission personnel and property.
( j ) The Commission may designate an Alternate Defense Commissioner who is authorized to perform the functions of the Defense Commissioner if he or she is not available.
[29 FR 14664, Oct. 28, 1964, as amended at 41 FR 31209, July 27, 1976; 64 FR 60720, Nov. 8, 1999; 69 FR 32033, May 27, 2004; 71 FR 69035, Nov. 29, 2006; 72 FR 48842, Aug. 24, 2007; 77 FR 62462, Oct. 15, 2012; 88 FR 21429, Apr. 10, 2023]
Order filed June 13, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00099

- CV

____________ 24/7 GRILL, LLC , Appellant

V. DONAL S. CLARK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 04CV0895F



### O R D E R
Appellant ’ s brief was due May 22, 2013

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant submits its brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before July 15, 2013 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Kenneth D. Denman as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 his
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                        
| |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth D. Denman  
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Kenneth D. Denman      
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

February 9, 2009

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), Karen J. Willem, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, 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 her
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                 
| |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Karen J. Willem                             
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Karen J. Willem                                 
| |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer

February 9, 2009
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellant

v.

SINGULAR COMPUTING LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2022-1866, 2022-1867, 2022-1868

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00155, IPR2021-00165, IPR2021-00179.

______________________

O R D E R

On January 30, 2024, the above-captioned appeals 

were stayed pending further order of the court.

On March 1, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of 

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The stay of proceedings in the above-captioned appeals are lifted.

Case: 22-1866 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2024
2 GOOGLE LLC v. SINGULAR COMPUTING LLC

(2) The above-captioned appeals are dismissed under 

Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear their own costs.

March 1, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 1, 2024

Case: 22-1866 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         402,211
<SECURITIES>                                   7,998,324
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,401,443
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,400,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          282,431
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       10,560
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,507,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,400,535
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               38,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (38,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
S8900023.

#### STEVENSON v. WHISNANT.

(381 SE2d 515)

Per curiam.

In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*
      *274251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and the petition is therefore dismissed.

Decided June 8, 1989.

Jimmy Lee Stevenson, *pro se.*

*Douglas C. Pullen, District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.*
# SALINAAirpor t

Oiainna n We e Chairma n Stcntar yTreasure rPastOMHtma n Jeffre yft. Thompso n Dr . Rand yHassle rDara n Netudufe rJeffMae s Juli e SajerHiUe r 

### TMEN TO F ^ur[lniju,i^ .

^ r ! L ; P 19: ? • [xecutlv e Directo rTimoth yF . Rogers , A.A.E . Mgr . ofAdfflinistratfo n an d Riuttc e Michell e ft . Swanso n Mgr.ofOperatfoi u David'Gunner " Wile s f4gr*o f FadUtiesltennyBiekc r Mgr . o f Pubti c Affair s an d Cocnmunkatiott t Meliss a L . McCo y

Boar dAttorne y Greg A . Benglso n Decembe r9 , 201 1 Mr . Tod d M . Horma n Directo r Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Essentia l Ai rServic e a t Saiina , Kansa s Docl^e t DOT-OS T 200 2 - 1137 6 Dea rIVIr . Horman : Th e Saiin a Airport Authorit ysupport s th e SeaPor t Airlines ' proposa l fo r201 2 - 201 4 EA S Progra m servic e at Saiina , KS . SeaPor t ha s provide d excellen t servic e t o Saiin a an d Salin e Countyresident s sinc e Apri l 2010 . Th e airlin e i s overcomin g th e challeng e o f rebuildin g th e Saiin a marke t followin g poo rperformanc e b yth e 200 8 - 201 0 Saiin a EA S provider . SeaPort' s effort s woul d b e enhance d b ya U.S . DO

T decisio n t o award SeaPor t a fou r(4 ) yea r contract . A fou r(4 ) yea rcontract woul d allo w th e airlin e an d communityt o implemen t a longe r ter m marketin g progra m an d increas e passenge rconfidence . Th e Airport Authorit yi s committe d t o partne rwit h SeaPor t t o rebuil d th e Saiin a marke t an d brin g tota l passenge renplanement s t o a leve l greate rtha n a n averag e o f 62 5 pe rmonth . Than k yo u fo rconsiderin g ou rcomment s a s you roffic e finalize s th e 201 2 EA S contract fo r Saiina . Respectfull ysubmitted , SALIN A AIRPOR T AUTHORITY Timoth yF . Rogers , A.A.E . Executiv e Directo r TFR/g e F:\Public\MsOffice\Mult

i Aplicatio n Folders\Air

Service\EAS\201 1 Correspondence\Horman_Lt r 12-9-1 1 -Rogers.do c ''fNAirpor t 323 7 Amo W / sauna , K

S 67401-819 0 /

785.827.391 4 /

Fax : 785.827.222 1 SALINA^^'POl i ^ www.sal1naairport.co m 9Miluilual6»Hl M
* 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. 00-41055

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

UVALDO VELA-RIOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-91-CR-304-1

- - - - - - - - - -

July 13, 2001

Before JOLLY, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uvaldo 

Vela-Rios (Vela) has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Vela has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of

the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal

is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.