alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Crim. No. 20155.

Second Dist., Div. Four.

Jan. 8, 1974.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT HUGHES DORAN, Defendant and Appellant.

Opinion

THE COURT.

In the light of *People*v. *Beamon*(1973) 8 Cal.3d 625 [105 Cal.Rptr. 681, 504 P.2d 905], it is clear that this court misconstrued section 1157 of the Penal Code when we treated defendant’s conviction for robbery as being in the first degree *(People*v. *Doran*(1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 316, 321-322 [100 Cal.Rptr. 886]). Applying the tests set forth by the Supreme Court in *People*v. *Beagle*(1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 454, fn. 2 [99 Cal.Rptr. 313, 492 P.2d 1], we conclude that the *Beamon*rule should be retroactively applied. In *People*v. *Cox*(1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 378 [109 Cal.Rptr. 43], we assumed, without discussion, that *Beamon*was *593retroactive. Accordingly, defendant is entitled to relief (see *People*v. *Mutch*(1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 396-399 [93 Cal.Rptr. 721, 482 P.2d 633]).

The result, in this case, as in *Cox,*is that Doran should be regarded as convicted of robbery in the second degree, with sections 1203 and 3024 of the Penal Code applicable, but with section 12022 of that code inapplicable.

Section 1157 of the Penal Code provides that the failure of a jury to find the degree of the offense causes the offense to be “deemed to be of the lesser degree.” Accordingly, the robbery herein involved should have been found to be of the second degree.

Since the conviction is for second degree, the full rationale of *People*v. *Floyd*(1969) 71 Cal.2d 879 [80 Cal.Rptr. 22, 457 P.2d 862], would seem to make sections 1203, 3024 and 12022 of the Penal Code all applicable. However, to make section 12022 applicable in this case would result in a sentence longer than for first degree robbery. We do not think that that result must follow.

The motion to recall the remittitur is granted; a new remittitur shall issue, providing as follows: “The judgment is modified to recite that defendant had been found guilty of, and was convicted of, robbery in the second degree and further to recite that, at the time of commission of that offense he was armed with a deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, within the meaning of sections 1203 and 3024 of the Penal Code but that section 12022 of the Penal Code is not applicable. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.”
SERVED: AUGUST 5, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF COMPASS SYSTEMS & SALES, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-2440 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING Thisproceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2014-GL-70-0239) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List. 

# 6 Ronnie A. Yoder

ChiefAdministrative LawJu e Attachment

- Service List - -; ".

-

. _- !

**~---·** ;· .

...-· ·- f., ;

### SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. 

### MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY



### Stuart A. Strasfeld, Respondent's Counsel 

### Roth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & 

### Lodge 100 E. Federal Street, Suite 600 Youngstown, OH 44503 Brian K. Khan, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AGL-7 Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 TEL: 847-294-7109 FPLK: 847-294-7498 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FPLK: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-2440 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
§ 22.861 Emission limitations. The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of emissions for commercial aviation systems in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. Commercial aviation air-ground systems may use any type of emission or technology that complies with the technical rules in this subpart. ( a ) *Out of band emissions.* The power of any emission outside of the authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the transmitting power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB.
( b ) *Measurement procedure.* Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. In the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy provided the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth (*i.e.*, 100 kHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
( c ) *Alternative out of band emission limit.* The licensee(s) of commercial aviation air-ground systems, together with affected licensees of Cellular Radiotelephone Service systems operating in the spectrum immediately below and adjacent to the commercial aviation air-ground bands, may establish an alternative out of band emission limit to be used at the 849 MHz and 894 MHz band edge(s) in specified geographical areas, in lieu of that set forth in this section, pursuant to a private contractual arrangement of all affected licensees and applicants. In this event, each party to such contract shall maintain a copy of the contract in their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees or transferees and, upon request, to the FCC.
( d ) *Interference caused by out of band emissions.* If any emission from a transmitter operating in this service results in interference to users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater attenuation of that emission than specified in this section.
[70 FR 19310, Apr. 13, 2005]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.46 Motions for extension of time. ( a ) It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.
( b ) Motions for extension of time in which to file responses to petitions for rulemaking, replies to such responses, comments filed in response to notice of proposed rulemaking, replies to such comments and other filings in rulemaking proceedings conducted under Subpart C of this part shall be filed at least 7 days before the filing date. If a timely motion is denied, the responses and comments, replies thereto, or other filings need not be filed until 2 business days after the Commission acts on the motion. In emergency situations, the Commission will consider a late-filed motion for a brief extension of time related to the duration of the emergency and will consider motions for acceptance of comments, reply comments or other filings made after the filing date.
( c ) If a motion for extension of time in which to make filings in proceedings other than notice and comment rule making proceedings is filed less than 7 days prior to the filing day, the party filing the motion shall (in addition to serving the motion on other parties) orally notify other parties and Commission staff personnel responsible for acting on the motion that the motion has been (or is being) filed.
[39 FR 43301, Dec. 12, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 9550, Mar. 5, 1976; 41 FR 14871, Apr. 8, 1976; 42 FR 28887, June 6, 1977; 63 FR 24124, May 1, 1998]
#### § 15.313 Measurement procedures.

Measurements must be made in accordance with subpart A, except where specific procedures are specified in subpart D. If no guidance is provided, the measurement procedure must be in accordance with good engineering practice.
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|March 31, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                     
|-------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|               | Marc N. Teal                                         
|               | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC IV Assignor Corp.
|               |
Exhibit 99.2


          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of on Form 10-QSB for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of
Runcorp, Inc.

Date: August 15, 2002         By:   /s/ Robert Gentles
                                        ------------------
                              Name:     Robert Gentles
                              Title:    Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-9402.

#### Wilson v. Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.
6/27/23, 1:30 PM National Service Criminal History Check Resources

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USCNCS/bulletins/35981c2 1/2

Office of Monitoring

June 27, 2023

We only use cookies that are necessary for this site to function to provide you with the best experience. The controller of this site may choose to place supplementary

cookies to support additional functionality such as support analytics, and has an obligation to disclose these cookies. Learn more in our Cookie Statement.

National Service Criminal History Check Resources

AmeriCorps sent this bulletin at 06/27/2023 10:09 AM EDT

National Service Criminal History Check

Resources

Reporting Cost-Based Disallowance

AmeriCorps updated the process for grant recipients to report disallowance enforced for

subrecipients. Please review the updated "Awardee Guide to Enforcement of Cost-Based

Disallowance" available on our website and refer to the "Change Log" section for full

details.

Grant recipients are encouraged to use the "Disallowance Summary" workbooks when

reporting cost-based disallowance of subrecipients. Access the workbooks on our

website.

AmeriCorps is hosting an information session for grant recipients to review the process for

reporting cost-based disallowance of subrecipients. A recording of the session will be

available on Litmos.

Reporting National Service Criminal History Check Disallowance:

Process Review for Prime Grant Recipients

Thursday, July 13, 2:30-3:30 p.m. ET

Register

Fieldprint and Truescreen Mapping Instructions

AmeriCorps’ approved vendors, Fieldprint and Truescreen, may link or map grantee staff

to their subrecipient program’s Fieldprint or Truescreen accounts for grant monitoring

purposes. Instructions are available in "Fieldprint and Truescreen Account Mapping," a

new resource on our website.
6/27/23, 1:30 PM National Service Criminal History Check Resources

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USCNCS/bulletins/35981c2 2/2

Manage preferences / AmeriCorps.gov

We sent this email to Email Address on behalf of AmeriCorps.

Subscribe to updates from AmeriCorps

Email Address e.g. name@example.com

Subscribe

Share Bulletin

Powered by

Privacy Policy | Cookie Statement | Help
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODRIGO CARMONA CARRERA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 21-70985 

Agency No. A087-913-647 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Rodrigo Carmona Carrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-70985 

Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for 

review.

Carmona Carrera’s contention that jurisdiction did not vest with the 

immigration court due to the missing information in his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) 

is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, No. 19-30006, 2022 WL 

2662044, *2 *6 (9th Cir. July 11, 2022) (en banc), where the court held that a lack 

of hearing information in the NTA does not deprive the immigration court of 

subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice 

provides hearing information. See also Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 

1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
7/17/2015 Shopping Cart

http://www.multicopterwarehouse.com/index.php?route=checkout/cart 1/2

Home » Shopping Cart

Success: Your shipping estimate has been applied!

Sub-Total: $3,881.00

Bundle Discount: $-155.24

Sales Tax: $306.60

Pickup From Store: $0.00

Total: $4,032.36

Shopping Cart

Image Product Name Model Quantity Unit Price Total

DJI Inspire 1 Quadcopter (with

two Remote Controllers)

Reward Points: 84.98

INSPIRE1-2 1 $3,399.00 $3,399.00

DJI Inspire 1 TB47 (4500 mAh)

Battery

Reward Points: 3.98

INSPIRE1-TB47 1 $159.00 $159.00

HPRC Hard Case DJI Inspire 1

Reward Points: 8.08

HPRC2730WINS 1 $323.00 $323.00

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO NEXT?

Choose if you have a discount code or reward points you want to use or would like to estimate your delivery cost.

Use Coupon Code

Estimate Shipping & Taxes

$155 / month

      

Search our Warehouse

MULTICOPTERS ACCESSORIES ELECTRONICS FPV PARTS

SERVICES FINANCING



3 item(s) -

$4,032.36 
7/17/2015 Shopping Cart

http://www.multicopterwarehouse.com/index.php?route=checkout/cart 2/2

CONTINUE SHOPPING CHECKOUT

INFORMATION

About Us

Delivery

Information

Financing

Privacy Policy

Terms &

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

Contact Us

Returns

Site Map

EXTRAS

Brands

Blog

Bundle Deals

Getting Started

© 2015 Multicopter Warehouse - All rights reserved.
§ 18.115 Elimination and investigation of harmful interference. ( a ) The operator of ISM equipment that causes harmful interference to radio services shall promptly take appropriate measures to correct the problem.
( b ) If the operator of ISM equipment is notified by the Commission's Regional Director that operation of such equipment is endangering the functioning of a radionavigation or safety service, the operator shall immediately cease operating the equipment. Operation may be resumed on a temporary basis only for the purpose of eliminating the harmful interference. Operation may be resumed on a regular basis only after the harmful interference has been eliminated and approval from the Regional Director obtained.
( c ) When notified by the Regional Director that a particular installation is causing harmful interference, the operator or manufacturer shall arrange for an engineer skilled in techniques of interference measurement and control to make an investigation to ensure that the harmful interference has been eliminated. The Regional Director may require the engineer making the investigation to furnish proof of his or her qualifications.
[50 FR 36067, Sept. 5, 1985, as amended at 80 FR 53750, Sept. 8, 2015]
17 March 2016

514P13-4

#### State v. Raymond Dakim Harris Joiner

Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Order for Dismissal

Dismissed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

PLAINTIFF(S) 

v.

ARBITRADE LTD., et al.,

DEFENDANT(S). 

CASE NUMBER

 1:22−cv−23171−BB

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

Clerk's Default

 It appearing that the defendant(s) herein, is/are in default for failure to appear, answer, or otherwise plead

to the complaint filed herein within the time required by law.

Default is hereby entered against defendant(s)

SION Trading FZE

as of course, on the date March 17, 2023.

Angela E. Noble

CLERK OF COURT

By /s/ Dimas Rodriguez

Deputy Clerk

cc: Judge Beth Bloom

 Securities and Exchange Commission

DEFAULT BY CLERK F.R.Civ.P.55(a)

CV−37 (10/01)

Case 1:22-cv-23171-BB Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/17/2023 Page 1 of 1
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: AMY R. GURVEY,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-134

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 

1:06-cv-01202-LGS-HBP, Judge Lorna G. Schofield.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Amy R. Gurvey petitions for a writ of mandamus to 

“disqualif[y]” the magistrate judge and district court judge, 

vacate the district court’s orders “retroactive to 2012,” and 

direct that her case be transferred. ECF No. 2-1 at 21–22.

The district court entered final judgment against Ms. 

Gurvey in 2017. She appealed to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed in 2018. 

In 2020 and 2021, the district court denied Ms. Gurvey’s 

requests to vacate the judgment. We transferred her appeals from those rulings (and her associated petition for a 

writ of mandamus) to the Second Circuit, which dismissed 

Case: 23-134 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
2 IN RE: GURVEY

them. In 2022, the district court entered an anti-filing injunction against Ms. Gurvey. This petition appears to arise 

out of Ms. Gurvey’s recent attempts to file submissions at 

the district court seeking disqualification and vacatur of 

the prior rulings, which have been returned to her unadjudicated. 

The All Writs Act provides that the federal courts “may 

issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). As that statute makes 

clear, however, the Act is not itself a grant of jurisdiction. 

See Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35 (1999). As 

we have repeatedly explained to Ms. Gurvey, we do not 

have jurisdiction over her case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295. Under the circumstances, we dismiss, having concluded that 

it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer to the 

Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is dismissed.

August 16, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-134 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023
9 June 2016

174P16

#### State v. Travis Taylor Dail

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COAP16-291)

1. Allowed 05/11/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*

3. State’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA

3.