alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jean KINSER, Appellant, v. WILLIAMS INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, a Virginia Corporation, Appellee.

No. 02-5308.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 4, 2004.

*551Mark Peyser Friedlander, Jr., Friedlan-der & Friedlander, McLean, YA, for Appellant.

Daniel M. Press, McLean, VA, for Ap-pellee.

Before RANDOLPH, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court from the District of Columbia and on the briefs and arguments of the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court is affirmed. *See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. FDIC, 310*F.3d 202, 205 (D.C.Cir.2002). Appellee’s alleged liability to appellant arises from the “best efforts” clause of paragraph 2 of the parties’ Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). Under that paragraph, ap-pellee is to use its “best efforts” to secure a release for appellant and her husband from all personal liability for the debts of their company, Atchison & Keller, Inc. To fulfill that commitment, paragraph 3 states appellee is to secure a working capital fine of credit of $1 million for the company, and appellee’s “best efforts” includes “the possible guarantee” of the debt. Simply put, the “best efforts” language in the MOU does not state a commitment by appellee to guarantee the entire loan or to procure the loan with no liability on the part of appellant and her husband. Furthermore, pursuant to the personal guaranty of appellant and her husband for the full amount of the loan, and their several pledges of collateral, the bank had discretion to seek repayment of the loan from them and to sell the collateral before pursuing any claim against appellee. Finally, by the terms of paragraph R.2 of the Extension Agreement between appellee and the bank, appellee’s liability was limited to fifty percent of the aggregate amount of the outstanding loan up to $500,000. Appellee put up no collateral for the loan and its acknowledgment in paragraph R.6 of the then outstanding amount of the loan did not change the terms of its liability to the bank under paragraph R.2.

Accordingly, there is no basis upon which appellant can prevail on her cross-claim against appellee for a credit greater than the amount awarded by the district court, and the district court did not err in dismissing the cross-claim. *See Conley v. Gibson,*355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); *Baker v. Dir., United States Parole Comm’n,*916 F.2d 725, 726 (D.C.Cir.1990); *Pleasants v. Locke,*924 F.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C.Cir.1991). The lack of notice of the court’s intent to dismiss *552the cross-claim resulted in no prejudice to appellant. *See Baker,*916 F.2d at 726; *Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.,*813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 10575 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JAIME ALVAR CARVAJAL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 165

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Defendant

- Appellant Jaime Alvar Carvajal appeals the district court’s
revocation of a previously imposed term of supervised release and imposition
of a sentence of 12 months and one day of imprisonment. He asserts that his supervised release was revoked pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which requires revocation and imposition of a term of imprisonment wh en the defendant is found to have committed specified types of violations of the terms

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-10575 Document: 00515299404 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020No. 19

- 10575

2 of supervised release, including the refusal to comply with drug testing. He contends that, because § 3583(g) does not require a jury determination beyon d
a reasonable doubt , it is unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court’s
decision in United States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). Carvajal concedes that review is limited to plain error because he did not
raise this issue in the district court. Se e United States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 259 (5th Cir. 2009). To prevail on plain error review, he must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights.
See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If Carvajal makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error , but we should do so only
if it “ seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. ” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The opinion in Haymond addresse s the constitutionality of § 3583(k), and the plurality opinion specifically state s that it does not express any view on the constitutionality of other subsections of the sta tute, including § 3583(g). See Haymond , 139 S. Ct. at 2382 n.7. T here currently is no caselaw from either the Supreme Court or this court extending Haymond to § 3583(g) revocations,

so we conclude that there is no error that was plain. See United States v. Gonzalez , 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Escalante

- Reyes , 689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). As Carvajal has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain

error, so that court’s revocation of his supervised re lease and the term of imprisonment are AFFIRMED. Case: 19-10575 Document: 00515299404 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
NUMBER 13-23-00579-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

THOMAS RHEMAN, Appellant,

v.

DEBORAH RHEMAN 

N/K/A DEBORAH SIBLEY, Appellee.

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 103RD DISTRICT COURT 

OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On December 14, 2023, appellant 

filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record was due on January 26, 2024. On January 25, 

2024, this Court notified appellant that unless he made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record and proof of payment was provided to the Court within ten days, the appeal was 
2

subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). On January 26, 

2024, the district clerk notified the Clerk of the Court that appellant had failed to make

arrangements for payment of the clerk’s record. On February 15, 2024, the district clerk

again notified the Clerk of the Court that appellant had failed to make arrangements for 

payment of the clerk’s record.

No clerk’s record has been filed due to appellant’s failure to pay or make payment 

arrangements, and appellant has failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk of the Court

requiring a response or other action within the time specified; accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

2nd day of May, 2024.
§ 25.285 Operation of MSS and ATC transmitters or transceivers on board civil aircraft. ( a ) Operation of any of the following devices aboard civil aircraft is prohibited, unless the device is installed in a manner approved by the Federal Aviation Administration or is used by the pilot or with the pilot's consent: ( 1 ) Earth stations capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, or 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service frequency bands;
( 2 ) ATC terminals capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz or 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS bands;
( 3 ) Earth stations used for non-voice, non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service communication that can emit radiation in the 108-137 MHz band.
( b ) No portable device of any type identified in paragraph (a) of this section (including transmitter or transceiver units installed in other devices that are themselves portable) may be sold or distributed to users unless it conspicuously bears the following warning: “This device must be turned off at all times while on board aircraft.” For purposes of this section, a device is portable if it is a “portable device” as defined in § 2.1093(b) of this chapter or is designed to be carried by hand.
[79 FR 8325, Feb. 12, 2014]
9 June 2016

208PA15

#### The North Carolina State Bar v. Jerry R. Tillett

Special Order 05/27/2016
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15160]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9015-6]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/16/2014 Through 06/20/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.
EIS No. 20140177, Final EIS, NRCS, UT, Green River Diversion 
Rehabilitation Project, Review Period Ends: 07/28/2014, Contact: David 
Brown 801-524-4551.
EIS No. 20140178, Final EIS, FERC, TX, Freeport LNG Liquefaction 
Project and Phase II Modification Project, Review Period Ends: 07/28/
2014, Contact: Eric Tomasi 202-502-8097.
EIS No. 20140179, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Sugarloaf Hazardous Fuels 
Reduction, Review Period Ends: 07/28/2014, Contact: Carol Spinos 530-
534-6500.
EIS No. 20140180, Draft EIS, NPS, CA, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 
Parks Wilderness Stewardship Plan, Comment Period Ends: 08/25/2014, 
Contact: Nancy Hendricks 559-565-3102.
EIS No. 20140181, Draft Supplement, BR, ND, Northwest Area Water Supply 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/11/2014, Contact: Alicia Waters 701-
221-1206.
EIS No. 20140182, Final EIS, DOI, 00, PROGRAMMATIC--Deepwater Horizon 
Oil Spill: Phase III Early Restoration Plan, Review Period Ends: 07/28/
2014, Contact: Nanciann Regalado 404-679-4161.

    Dated: June 24, 2014.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-15160 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 32.6790 Provision for uncollectible notes receivable.

This account shall be charged with amounts concurrently credited to Account 1170, Receivables.

[67 FR 5697, Feb. 6, 2002]
YOEL JOSE BUSTO

- RAMOS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 643

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. David P. Kreider , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Zachary F. Lawton, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, BENTON

, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
§ 15.705 Cross reference. ( a ) The provisions of subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to white space devices, except where specific provisions are contained in this subpart.
( b ) The requirements of this subpart apply only to the radio transmitter contained in the white space device. Other aspects of the operation of a white space device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a white space device that includes a receiver that tunes within the frequency range specified in § 15.101(b) and contains digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter is also subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.
#### § 3.50 Retention of settlement records.

Accounting authorities must maintain, for the purpose of compliance with these rules, all settlement records for a period of at least seven years following settlement of an account with a foreign administration or agent.
[Civ. No. 15488.

Second Dist., Div. One.

Dec. 9, 1946.]

#### SAMUEL T. WESTWOOD et al., Respondents, v. SAMUEL B. FRANKLIN, Appellant.

Gordon W. Levoy and A. Albert Spar for Appellant.

Miller & Beck for Respondents.

DORAN, J.

In this action to quiet title and for declaratory relief plaintiff prevailed and defendant appeals.

The facts briefly are as follows: In October, 1944, plaintiff purchased a residence occupied by defendant as a tenant. Following the purchase, plaintiffs’ efforts to get possession were in vain; it appears from the record that an institution referred to as the O.P.A. complicated this procedure. Finally, plaintiff offered to sell the property to defendant; this was two or three months after the purchase and the offer was by letter written to defendant. Hearing nothing from defendant, plaintiff sold the property to one William A. Roach ; an escrow was opened in the bank to complete the transaction. In August 24,1945, upon learning of the sale, defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff accepting the offer made months before and notified the escrow holder of a claim of interest in the property. Defendant was still in possession.

At the trial the court found against defendant on all issues. In particular, the court found that the ‘' offer was revoked by operation of law prior to its acceptance by the lapse of said *190unreasonable length of time between the making of said offer and its purported acceptance by defendant.” Also, “that there was never any valid binding contract between plaintiffs and defendants.”

On appeal, appellant argues that an unreasonable length of time had not elapsed; that the offer was still open; that certain evidence was received with regard to proceedings had before said O.P.A. and a few other objections on appeal that do not merit attention.

The appeal is without merit, in fact frivolous. No citation of authority nor further consideration is necessary to justify the action of the trial court. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the findings and there are no errors in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

York, P. J., and White, J., concurred.
PUBLIC LAW 112–192—OCT. 5, 2012 126 STAT. 1441 

Public Law 112–192 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To provide flexibility with respect to United States support for assistance provided 

by international financial institutions for Burma, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 

Upon a determination by the President that it is in the national 

interest of the United States to support assistance for Burma, 

the Secretary of the Treasury may instruct the United States Executive Director at any international financial institution to vote in 

favor of the provision of assistance for Burma by the institution, 

notwithstanding any other provision of law. The President shall 

provide the appropriate congressional committees with a written 

notice of any such determination. 

SEC. 2. CONSULTATION AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT. 

(a) Prior to making the determination contained in section 

1, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury each 

shall consult with the appropriate congressional committees on 

assistance to be provided to Burma by an international financial 

institution, and the national interests served by such assistance. 

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United 

States Executive Director at each international financial institution 

that the United States Executive Director may not vote in favor 

of any provision of assistance by the institution to Burma until 

at least 15 days has elapsed from the date on which the President 

has provided notice pursuant to section 1. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘appropriate congressional committees’’ means 

the Committees on Foreign Relations, Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs, and Appropriations of the Senate, and the 

Committees on Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives. 

(2) The term ‘‘assistance’’ means any loan or financial or 

technical assistance, or any other use of funds. 

Time period. 

Notification. 

President. 

Determination. 

50 USC 1701 

note. 

Oct. 5, 2012 

[H.R. 6431] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
126 STAT. 1442 PUBLIC LAW 112–192—OCT. 5, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6431: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Sept. 19, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

(3) The term ‘‘international financial institution’’ shall have 

the same meaning as contained in section 7029(d) of division 

I of Public Law 112–74. 

Approved October 5, 2012. 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
§ 51-9.201 Conditions of disclosure. No Committee member or employee of the Committee shall disclose any record to any person or to another agency without the express written consent of the subject individual unless the disclosure is: ( a ) To Committee members or employees who have a need for the information in the official performance of their duties.
( b ) Required under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
( c ) For a routine use as published in the annual notice in the Federal Register.
( d ) To the Bureau of Census for uses pursuant to Title 13.
( e ) To a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable. The written statement should include as a minimum: ( 1 ) A statement of the purpose for requesting the records, and
( 2 ) Certification that the records will be used only for statistical purposes. These written statements shall be maintained as records. In addition to stripping, personally identifying information from records released for statistical purpose, the Committee will ensure that the identity of the individual cannot reasonably be deducted by combining various statistical records.
( f ) To the National Archives of the United States as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Administrator of General Services or his designee to determine whether the record has such value.
( g ) To another agency or instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought.
( h ) To a person showing compelling circumstances affecting the health and safety of an individual (not necessarily the individual to whom the record pertains). Upon such disclosure, a notification of such shall be sent to the last known address of the individual.
( i ) To either House of Congress or to a subcommittee or committee (joint or of either House, to the extent that the subject matter falls within their jurisdiction).
( j ) To the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office, or
( k ) Pursuant to the order of the court of competent jurisdiction.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.787 Reports of proposed changes in depreciation rates.

Carriers shall file reports regarding proposed changes in depreciation rates as required by part 43 of this chapter.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending March 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Date: September 30, 2011

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1167 Error claims related to regulatory fees. ( a ) Challenges to determinations or an insufficient regulatory fee payment or delinquent fees should be made in writing. A challenge to a determination that a party is delinquent in paying a standard regulatory fee must be accompanied by suitable proof that the fee had been paid or waived (deferred from payment during the period in question), or by the required regulatory payment and any assessed penalty payment (see § 1.1164(c) of this subpart). Challenges submitted with a fee payment must be submitted to address stated on the invoice or billing statement. Challenges not accompanied by a fee payment should be filed with the Commission's Secretary and clearly marked to the attention of the Managing Director or emailed to *ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov .*
( b ) The filing of a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a fee determination will not relieve licensees from the requirement that full and proper payment of the underlying fee payment be submitted, as required by the Commission's action, or delegated action, on a request for waiver, reduction or deferment. Petitions for reconsideration and applications for review submitted with a fee payment must be submitted to the same location as the original fee payment. Petitions for reconsideration and applications for review not accompanied by a fee payment should be filed with the Commission's Secretary and clearly marked to the attention of the Managing Director. ( 1 ) Failure to submit the fee by the date required will result in the assessment of a 25 percent penalty.
( 2 ) If the fee payment should fail while the Commission is considering the matter, the petition for reconsideration or application for review will be dismissed.
[60 FR 34035, June 29, 1995, as amended at 69 FR 27848, May 17, 2004]