alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2020-1499: Franco v. Defense - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oDF2tIbnZy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1499-franco-v-defense-audio-uploaded\/\">2020-1499: Franco v. Defense<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/12-10-2020-2020-1499-franco-v-defense-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=oDF2tIbnZy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2020-1499: Franco v. Defense” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"oDF2tIbnZy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Franco v. Defense (mp3) Appeal Number: 2020-1499 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4619

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an official duty defense

to certain section 32 and related offenses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 21, 1994

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an official

duty defense to certain section 32 and related offenses.

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

3 That section 32 of title 18, United States Code, is amend4 ed by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(d) It is a defense to a prosecution for an offense

6 under subsection (b)(2) of this section (or an offense based

7 upon such subsection under or by reason of section 2 or

8 371 of this title) that the defendant was an officer or em9 ployee of the United States, or of a non-foreign govern-
2

•HR 4619 IH

1 mental entity within the United States, engaged in law

2 enforcement activity authorized by law.’’.

Æ
**Exhibit      32.1**

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

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

| (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Bu Shengfu                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Bu                Shengfu                              |
| President                (Principal Executive Officer) |
| May 20, 2008                                           |
|                                                   |
| /s/                Liang Zhu                           |
| Liang                Zhu                               |
| Chief                Financial Officer                 |
| May 20, 2008                                           |

----
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.60001 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable to the ECIP. ( a ) *Affiliate.* A person holding an attributable interest in an applicant if such individual or entity: ( 1 ) Directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the applicant; or
( 2 ) Is directly or indirectly controlled by the applicant; or
( 3 ) Is directly or indirectly controlled by a third party or parties that also controls or has the power to control the applicant; or
( 4 ) Has an “identity of interest” with the applicant. Note 1 to paragraph (a).
See §§ 1.2110 and 1.2112(a)(1) through (7) for further clarification on determining affiliation.
( b ) *Qualifying transaction.* A transaction between unaffiliated parties involving a partition and/or disaggregation, long-term leasing arrangement, or full assignment that meets the requirements of either the small carrier or Tribal Nation transaction prong pursuant to § 1.60003 or the rural-focused transaction prong pursuant to § 1.60004.
( c ) *Qualifying geography.* Qualifying Geography is the minimum geography threshold required for the rural-focused transaction prong.
( d ) *Rural area.* Rural area is any area except: ( 1 ) A city, town, or incorporated area that has a population of more than 20,000 inhabitants; or
( 2 ) An urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to a city or town that has a population of more than 50,000 inhabitants.
( e ) *Small carrier.* A small carrier is a carrier, defined as any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153), that: ( 1 ) Has not more than 1,500 employees (as determined under 13 CFR 121.106); and
( 2 ) Offers services using the facilities of the carrier.
( f ) *Transaction geography.* Transaction Geography is the total geography included in a Qualifying Transaction.
( g ) *Tribal nation.* A Tribal Nation is any federally-recognized American Indian Tribe and Alaska Native Village, the consortia of federally recognized Tribes and/or Native Villages, and other entities controlled and majority-owned by such Tribes or consortia.
[87 FR 57417, Sept. 20, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 11743, Feb. 15, 2024]
**EXHIBIT 32(b)**

**ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Hendrx Corp. (“Registrant”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), I, Cherry Cai, chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

(1)     This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of 

        operation of the Registrant. 

Date: November 10, 2006 

/s/ Cherry Cai

Cherry Cai 

Chief Financial Officer 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by §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. 

**40**

----
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 45849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6809]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Oil Pollution Act

    Notice is hereby given that on July 25, 2006, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States et al. v. Bean Stuyvesant, LLC et al., Civil 
Action No. C-03-5694 CRB, was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of California.
    The Consent Decree settles claims for natural resource damages 
under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., and certain state 
law claims that arose in connection with a 1999 spill of fuel oil from 
the dredge M/V Stuyvesant in the vicinity of Humboldt Bay, near Eureka, 
California. Under the Consent Decree the defendants will: (1) Pay 
$1,975,000 jointly to the state and Federal natural resource trustees 
for natural resource damages; (2) pay $887,090 to cover assessment 
costs incurred by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Natural 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the California Department of 
Fish and Game, and the California State Lands Commission; (3) pay 
$48,000 to resolve state law claims; and (4) purchase a conservation 
easement to protect approximately 625 acres of redwood forest in 
perpetuity as habitat for the marbled murrelet.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States et al. v. Bean Stuyvesant LLC et al., D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-
07061.
    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be 
examined on the following Department of Justice Web site http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be 
obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 or by faxing or e-
mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#374358595e5619515b5252434058585377424453585d19505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="493d26272028672f252c2c3d3e26262d093c3a2d2623672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>), fax 
no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation number (202) 514-1547. In 
requesting a copy from the Consent Decree Library, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $17.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) 
payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Henry S. Friedman,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 06-6809 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1027

_____________________________

DENISE M. STOCKER,

Appellant,

v.

RONALD E. SHOLES, P.A.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tyrie W. Boyer, Judge.

October 30, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

 
2

Denise M. Stocker, pro se, Appellant.

Joseph S. Miller of Ronald E. Sholes, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Appellee.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2023-1058: SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"bYJaUo8e8l\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2023-1058-smartsky-networks-llc-v-gogo-business-aviation-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2023-1058: SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2023-1058-smartsky-networks-llc-v-gogo-business-aviation-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=bYJaUo8e8l\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2023-1058: SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"bYJaUo8e8l\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: SmartSky Networks, LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation, LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2023-1058 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
§ 5.77 Change in equipment and emission characteristics. ( a ) The licensee of a conventional, broadcast, or Spectrum Horizons experimental radio station may make any changes in equipment that are deemed desirable or necessary provided: ( 1 ) That the operating frequency is not permitted to deviate more than the allowed tolerance;
( 2 ) That the emissions are not permitted outside the authorized band;
( 3 ) That the ERP (or EIRP) and antenna complies with the license and the regulations governing the same; and
( b ) For conventional or Spectrum Horizons experimental radio stations, the changes permitted in paragraph (a) of this section may be made without prior authorization from the Commission provided that the licensee supplements its application file with a description of such change. If the licensee wants these emission changes to become a permanent part of the license, an application for modification must be filed.
( c ) Prior authorization from the Commission is required before the following antenna changes may be made at a station at a fixed location: ( 1 ) Any change that will either increase the height of a structure supporting the radiating portion of the antenna or decrease the height of a lighted antenna structure.
( 2 ) Any change in the location of an antenna when such relocation involves a change in the geographic coordinates of latitude or longitude by one second or more, or when such relocation involves a change in street address.
[78 FR 25162, Apr. 29, 2013, as amended at 84 FR 25690, June 4, 2019]
No. 11-5221.

#### Freitag *v.*Nooth, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-2090: STRAW v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"oCGRff4LKu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-20-2090-straw-v-wilkie-opinion-20-2090-opinion-1-15-2021_1718161\/\">20-2090: STRAW v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/1-15-2021-20-2090-straw-v-wilkie-opinion-20-2090-opinion-1-15-2021_1718161\/embed\/#?secret=oCGRff4LKu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-2090: STRAW v. WILKIE [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"oCGRff4LKu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: STRAW v. WILKIE [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-2090 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
#### § 18.313 Radio frequency exposure requirements.

Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.

[85 FR 18150, Apr. 1, 2020]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23




               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



SCB Computer Technology, Inc.
Memphis, Tennessee


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-1590, Form S-8 No. 333-36971, Form S-8 No.
333-68343 and Form S-8 No. 333-76118), of our report dated June 18, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of SCB Computer
Technology, Inc., incorporated by reference and/or appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2003.


Memphis, Tennessee
July 22, 2003



                                        /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
                                        -------------------------------
No. 11-9399.

#### Butler *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9994.

No. 11-10052.

#### In re Carrillo; and In re Noah.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
No. 11-5181.

#### Johnson *v.*Ryan, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JORGE MARISCAL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-50349

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-02838-LAB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 6, 2012** 

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Following a bench trial, Appellant Jorge Mariscal (“Mariscal”) was

convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), which prohibits an alien from illegally

reentering the United States after he previously left the country while an order of

FILED

AUG 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

removal was outstanding. On appeal, Mariscal argues that the government failed

to sufficiently prove his prior physical departure. 

Where a party on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we view

the evidence “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” and then determine

whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634,

641–42 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 

Appellant relies heavily on United States v. Arias-Ordonez, 597 F.3d 972,

978 (9th Cir. 2009), where we held that if the government seeks to rely on a notice

of reinstatement to remove an alien, the defendant must have an opportunity to

challenge the underlying order of removal. Here, however, Mariscal does not

dispute the validity of the underlying 2007 Order of Removal. Therefore, we need

not determine whether the 2010 Notice of Reinstatement was valid. 

Similarly, Mariscal does not dispute the validity of the 2010 Warrant of

Removal, dated September 8, 2010, which contains Mariscal’s fingerprints and the

sworn statement of an immigration officer stating that he removed Mariscal to

Mexico “on foot” that day. Therefore, the district court properly found that the

government sufficiently proved Mariscal’s physical departure beyond a reasonable

doubt. See United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2006)
3

(warrant of removal “sufficient alone to support a finding of removal beyond a

reasonable doubt”) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Bahena-Cardenas,

411 F.3d 1067, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (warrant of removal “provided sufficient

evidence of physical removal”)). 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 32.5003 Cellular mobile revenue.

This account shall include message revenue derived from cellular mobile telecommunications systems connected to the public switched network placed between mobile units and other stations within the mobile service area.