alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cathy LITTLE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 05-1265.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.

Cathy Little, Appellant pro se. Tarra Deshields Minnis, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Cathy Little appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment for Appellee on some claims, and implementing the jury’s verdict on other claims, in this action arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e — 2000e-17 (2000), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accord*174ingly, we affirm based on the jury’s verdict and for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Little v. Potter,*No. CA-03-3403-MJG (D.Md. Mar. 3, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 08-51290

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACINTO ANALCO-GATICA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-1789-ALL

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacinto Analco-Gatica (Analco) was convicted of illegal reentry after

deportation and was sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment and three years

of supervised release. 

Analco argues on appeal that his sentence, which was within the advisory

guidelines sentencing range, was greater than necessary to meet the sentencing

goals established in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). He contends that his sentence was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51290

2

therefore substantively unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline (1) is

not based on empirical data, (2) does not take into account the unusual

circumstances surrounding his offense, (3) overstates the seriousness of his

offense, and (4) does not properly account for his personal history. 

Because Analco did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence in the

district court and because he received the within-guidelines sentence that he had

requested, the reasonableness of his sentence should be reviewed for plain error.

See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 2959 (2008). 

The record demonstrates that the district court considered the § 3553(a)

factors to determine that Analco’s sentence was sufficient but not greater than

necessary to achieve the goals of § 3553(a)(2). Furthermore, as to Analco’s

assertion that the illegal reentry Guidelines are not based on empirical data,

“[i]n appropriate cases, district courts certainly may disagree with the

Guidelines for policy reasons and may adjust a sentence accordingly. But if they

do not, [this court] will not second-guess their decisions under a more lenient

standard simply because the particular Guideline is not empirically-based.”

United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir. 2009), cert.

denied, 2009 WL 1849974 (Oct. 5, 2009) (No. 08-11099). Analco has failed to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to a within-guidelines

sentence. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). As a result, he has not shown that the

district court committed plain error by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See

Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                 814,313
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6,060,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                           100,475
<INVENTORY>                                         10,958,847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,865,333
<PP&E>                                               8,281,779
<DEPRECIATION>                                        (348,079)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      36,528,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               23,480,616
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                4,811,321
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                               265,711
<OTHER-SE>                                            (430,184)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        36,528,730
<SALES>                                             14,876,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    14,876,579
<CGS>                                               10,619,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       15,339,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,112,990
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     912,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,170,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (1,170,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,170,474)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.10)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 296 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 296

Expressing the sense of the Senate that, on completion of construction 
 of a World War II Memorial in Area I of the District of Columbia and 
  its environs, Congress should provide funding for the maintenance, 
   security, and custodial and long-term care of the memorial by the 
                         National Park Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

              October 9 (legislative day, October 2), 1998

Mr. Kerrey submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Senate that, on completion of construction 
 of a World War II Memorial in Area I of the District of Columbia and 
  its environs, Congress should provide funding for the maintenance, 
   security, and custodial and long-term care of the memorial by the 
                         National Park Service.

Whereas World War II is the defining event of the 20th century;
Whereas in World War II, over 16,000,000 American men and women served the 
        Nation, of which nearly 300,000 were killed and over 670,000 were 
        wounded;
Whereas in Public Law 103-422 (108 Stat. 4356), Congress approved the location 
        of a memorial to this epic event in Area I of the District of Columbia 
        and its environs, as described in the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
        standards for placement of commemorative works on certain Federal lands 
        in the District of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes'', 
        approved November 14, 1986 (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.); and
Whereas Congress has traditionally provided funding for the memorials 
        commemorating President Thomas Jefferson and President Abraham Lincoln, 
        the monument to President George Washington, and the Korean War Veterans 
        Memorial: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. FUNDING OF A WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL.

    It is the sense of the Senate that, on completion of construction 
of a World War II Memorial in Area I of the District of Columbia and 
its environs, as described in that Act, Congress should provide funding 
for the maintenance, security, and custodial and long-term care of the 
memorial by the National Park Service.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 7

- 0 0 316

- C V

Style: Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell

, Elliot Gilbreath , and Mark

Ritter ; SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch

West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing #1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #2, Ltd.,

Big Signs & Leasing #3, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #4, Ltd., Big Signs &

Leasing #5, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #6, Ltd., Big Eastex #1, Ltd.,

Realty Acquisitions & Holdings, LLC, and Big Leasing, LLC v. Lisa R.

Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan

2001 Irrevocable Trust

Date motion filed * : November 2 1

, 201 7

Type of motion: Opposed Fourth Motion to Extend Time to File Appella n t s’ Brief

Part ies filing motion: Company Appellant ’s Lead Counsel Lauren B. Harris and Individual

Appellants’ Lead Counsel Kevin Dubose

Document to be filed: Company and Individual Appellant s ’ Brief s

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 1, 201 7

Number of extensions granted: 3 Current Due D ate: December 1 , 2017

Date Requested: December 31 , 201 7 ( 12 1 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document i s to be filed, document due: January 2 , 201 8

.  No further extensions of time will be granted

.  Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Because appellants’ fourth extension provides extraordinary reas ons, including company

appellants’ lead counsel’s illness, this extension is granted until January 2, 2018, but no

further extensions will be granted

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4.1(a), 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d).

Judge’ s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Date: November 2 8 , 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERCEL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         195,422
<SECURITIES>                                   144,260
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                       241
<INVENTORY>                                      1,802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               360,086
<PP&E>                                         188,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 925,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,809
<BONDS>                                        466,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          2
<COMMON>                                           269
<OTHER-SE>                                     433,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   925,242
<SALES>                                          2,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,414
<CGS>                                            2,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,777)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   758
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (4,040)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,166)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (306)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000527

12-AUG-2016

08:10 AM
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Order/U.S. v. Markus Moore/CR05-5823RBL - 1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

1201 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 700

TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402

(253) 428-3800

Judge Ronald B. Leighton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR05-5823RBL

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

MARKUS VERNON MOORE, )

)

Defendant. ) )

After consideration of defendant Markus Moore’s motion to compel discovery, and the

response filed thereto, and after consideration of all of the evidence presented at any hearing on

the motion,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED as

Moot. .

DATED this 14th day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Gregory A. Gruber 

GREGORY A. GRUBER

Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Kent Y. Liu 

KENT Y. LIU

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05823-RBL Document 134 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 1
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand oil possibilities of the Moab district, Grand and San Juan counties, Utah**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:841
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000961631
 
August 22, 2018
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

January 26, 2011

Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Air Quality

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Ms. Epps:

On January 4, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision 

to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP). This revision pertains to amendments to 25 Pa. Code

Chapters 121 and 129, which amends the existing regulations at §§ 121.1, 129.51, 129.52, and 

adds new § 129.52b for control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from paper, film, 

and foil surface coating processes. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and 

technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Irene Shandruk, 

Office of Air Program Planning, at 215- 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this 

rulemaking. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: Arleen Shulman, PADEP
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S

§ 2255 MOTION - Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GEORGE LAVELL FROST, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-2109-TSZ-MJB

) (CR01-325-TSZ)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ORDER DISMISSING 

) PETITIONER’S § 2255 MOTION

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s § 2255 motion, the Report and

Recommendation of Judge Monica J. Benton, United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining

record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. #1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature. See

United States v. Deeb, 944 F.2d 545, 548 (9th Cir. 1991)..

(3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to petitioner and to Judge

Benton.

DATED this 14th day of February, 2006.AThomas S. Zilly

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02109-TSZ Document 7 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 1
Order entered March 13 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 00983 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 0 1002 - CR No. 05 - 19 - 0 1003 - CR EDUARDO ISAI REYES - B ONILLA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F18 - 34785 - P , F18 - 34 298 - P & F18 - 3478 4 - P O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Crystal Jones

- Brown ’ s March 11 , 2020 letter which we shall tr eat as a r equest for additional t ime to file the reporter’s record in the above appeals

. We GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record filed on or before March 25 , 2020.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
#### James A.G. BUNCH, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; Lawrence Solomon, Superintendent at Odom Correctional Institution; Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6876.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 17, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.

James A.G. Bunch, Jr., Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

James A.G. Bunch, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order *235denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bunch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
November 20, 1962

No. 67208.

protest 321370-K.

#### Israel *Menchaca v.*United States,

C.D. 2349. Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A (the “Form 10-K/A”) to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of China Clean Energy Inc. (the “Company”).  I, William Chen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:





(1) The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.





Date: June 6, 2010





By:
/s/ William ChenName:
William ChenTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K/A for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.