alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50260 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. J. SANTOS FELIX

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Santos Felix

Hernandez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 11

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J. Santo s Felix

- Hernandez (Felix) was convicted of being an alien found in the United States without permission after having been previously deported , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ; he was sentenced to six months in prison and two years of non

- reporting supervised release

. On appeal, Felix challenges the

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 May 7, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50260 Document: 00512622118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2014No. 13

- 50260

district court ’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. He contends that he cannot be “found in” the United States because he had voluntarily presented himself fo r immigration inspection when he entered the southbound exit lane at the port of entry. “A challenge to an indictment based on the legal sufficiency of uncontested facts is an issue of law reviewed de novo.” United States v. Flores , 404 F.3d 320 , 326 (5 th Cir. 200 5 ). To prove Felix’s offense of conviction , the Government was required to establish four elements: (1) alienage, (2) arrest and deportation, (3) unlawful presence in the United States, and (4) lack of the Attorney General’s consent to reenter. United States v. Flores

- Peraza , 58 F.3d 164, 166 (5th Cir. 1995). Felix stipulated to the facts necessary to prove these elements , namely, that he was a citizen of Mexico, he was previously deported, he was “in the United States” when he was stopped (e ncountered) by the immigration officer , and he did not receive permission to renter the United States. See F lores

Peraza , 58 F.3d at 166; see United States v. Ramos

- Flores , 233 F. App’x 347, 348, 350 (5th Cir. 2007). His reliance upon United States v. An geles

- Mascote , 206 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Canals

- Jimenez , 943 F.2d 1284 (11th Cir. 1991) , is misplaced. In those cases, the alien defendants were attempting to enter the United States through a port of entry . Here, Felix had already illegally entered the United States without detection and was attempting to exit the United States through a port of entry

. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50260 Document: 00512622118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
##### 



Exhibit 32.A CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, of
El Paso CGP Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas L. Foshee, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify
(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/
Douglas L. FosheeDouglas L. FosheePresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
August 15, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of County Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy J. Schneider, President of the Company, 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) | 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/ Timothy J. Schneider |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Timothy J. Schneider     |   |
| President                |   |
|                     |   |
| March 28, 2016           |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to County Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by County Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62770-62771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31026]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:04 a.m. on 
Tuesday, November 18, 1997, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate, supervisory, and resolution 
activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), seconded by 
Director Joseph H. Neely (Appointive), concurred in by Ms. Julie 
Williams, acting in the place and stead of Director Eugene A. Ludwig 
(Comptroller of the Currency), and Acting Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., 
that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on 
less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of 
the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require 
consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; 
and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by 
authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), 
(c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii)), (c)(9)(B), and 
(c)(10)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.


[[Page 62771]]


    Dated: November 18, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James D. LaPierre,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31026 Filed 11-20-97; 4:35 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
# Table 1 - Totals

# Table 2a - Corporate

# Table 2b - Individual

# Table 3 - Ranked

# Table 4 - Present Value
Exhibit
23.03








RPS
Energy


309
Reading Road


Henley-on-Thames


Oxfordshire,
RG9 IEL


United
Kingdom


T #44 (0)
1491 415400


F #44 (0)
1491 415415


www.rpsgroup.com

















CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS








We hereby
consent to the use of the name RPS Energy and of references to RPS Energy and to
the inclusion of and references to our report, or information contained therein,
dated February 22, 2010, prepared for FX
Energyin the FX
Energy, Inc. annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended 31st December
2009, and the incorporation by reference to the report prepared by RPS Energy
into FX
Energy, Inc.'s previously filed registration statements listed
below:





Form
            SEC File No.
            Effective DateS-3
            333-155718
            June
      29, 2009S-8
            333-112717
            February
      11, 2004S-8
            333-128299
            September
      14, 2005








RPS
Energy








Michiel
Stofferis


Michiel
Stofferis


Petroleum
Engineering Manager





16 March
2010
1

Applicant Name and Contact Information:

USAerobotix LLC

Attn: Jason T. Adams, Vice President

PO BOX 124

Gettysburg, OH 45328

(260) 444-1550

jason@usaerobotix.com

April 17, 2015

Exemption Revision to Docket FAA-2015-0231-0001

Dear Administrators,

In addendum to the review process of USAerobotix LLC’s (“USAerobotix”), the operator, would request a 

revised understanding of the qualifications for the Pilot-in-Command (“PIC”) of the Operation. As stated 

in the original request for exemption, still under review as of this writing in List of Limitations and 

Conditions:

12. The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third-class medical 

certificate. The PIC will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 C.F.R. § 61.56 in 

an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his/her pilot certificate. If the FAA were to pass legislation 

for separate criteria for a UAS private pilot certificate, that may also be used. Similar level 

certification from the Department of Defense may also satisfy this requirement. USAerobotix also 

believes that the training and certification program outlined in the Manual is sufficient and could 

replace the Private Pilot Certificate requirement, upon the FAA’s approval. 

USAerobotix wrote above in the original exemption that if the FAA were to pass legislation for separate 

criteria for a UAS private pilot certificate, that may also be used. As of April 9, 2015, the FAA issued a 

press release explaining the newer, faster, more flexible regulatory approach to Section 333 exemption 

requests. 

USAerobotix would like to amend its original proposal for PIC requirements by including the following:

12. The PIC must possess at least a recreational or sport pilot certificate and a valid driver’s license.

The PIC will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft 

in which the PIC is rated on his/her pilot certificate. If the FAA were to pass legislation for 

separate criteria for a UAS private pilot certificate, that may also be used. Similar level 

certification from the Department of Defense may also satisfy this requirement. USAerobotix also 

believes that the training and certification program outlined in the Manual is sufficient and could 

replace the requirement for pilot certification, upon the FAA’s approval.

The above will replace the original 12th point in the List of Limitations and Conditions, as referenced

earlier in this document. USAerobotix understands that this amendment does not alter the original 

intent of the first exemption proposal submitted. USAerobotix wishes to be clear on the safety and 

practicability of UAS operations versus manned operations for utility inspection.
2

Sincerely,

Jason T. Adams

Vice President, USAerobotix LLC
#### L. R. ROOKS and Catherine T. Rooks, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF ORLANDO, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 4, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Parker Lee McDonald, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ William Pagano           |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   |                         |   |
| Name:  | William      Pagano          |   |
|   |                         |   |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   |                         |   |
|   | Date:      November 13, 2009 |   |

----
#### Joseph BAUM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William M. Grodnick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Baum was charged by information with two counts of robbery and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was tried by jury, found guilty, convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment in the state penitentiary for each of the robbery charges, and fifteen years imprisonment for the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm. TWo points are raised on this appeal.

The first point is that the court erred in permitting an expert witness to give an opinion based on latent fingerprints where the original objects from which the latent fingerprints were lifted, were not produced in court. This contention is without merit and directly controlled by our recent decision in *Butler v. State,*348 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Also see *United States v. Sewar,*468 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1972); *United States v. Herndon,*536 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976).

The second point is that the court erred in imposing separate consecutive sentences for robbery and for unlawful possession of a firearm, where both charges arose out of the same transaction. This sentencing question has been resolved adversely to the defendant. See *Estevez v. State,*313 So.2d 692 (Fla.1975); *Swyers v. State,*334 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); *Johnson v. State,*338 So.2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

*937No error having been demonstrated by the defendant, the judgment and sentence are

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105
 

Mr. James M. Reilly NOV 17 2011 

Arizona Public Service Company 

4801 Cholla Lake Road 

Joseph City, Arizona 86032 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

I am writing to inform you that EPA Region 9 is developing a partial Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state of Arizona. The purpose of the Regional Haze FIP is to improve 

visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and surrounding states as required by Section 

169A of the Clean Air Act (Act). During the process of developing the Arizona Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on March 2, 2011, the Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) performed a five-factor Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

analysis for the Cholla Power Plant. We will revisit ADEQ's determination, and possibly conduct a new 

five-factor BART analysis, to determine whether any additional emissions controls are warranted under 

section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act, and EPA's implementing regulations and BART guidelines at 40 CFR 

Part 51, Subpart P and Appendix Y. 

As we begin our FIP analysis, we have requested that ADEQ provide us with all background materials, 

including BART analyses, that were performed by them or the affected facilities. We may also request 

that you provide us with additional information on the Cholla Power Plant as our analysis proceeds. In 

the meantime, we welcome the submission of any additional, relevant information that you would like to 

provide to our office. 

EPA has entered into a consent decree that requires the Agency to propose approval of Arizona's 

Regional Haze SIP and/or propose a Regional Haze FIP that meets the requirements of the Act and 

EPA's regional haze regulations by May 15,2012. The consent decree also requires the Agency to take 

final action on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and/or FIP by November 15,2012. EPA Region 9 will 

hold public hearings in Arizona and solicit public comments on a proposed Arizona Regional Haze FIP 

in the months preceding the November 15 deadline. 

If you would like to submit any additional information or analysis, we request that you send it by 

February 29,2012. Any modeling of the facility should use the regulatory versions of CALPUFF 

(version 5.8, level 070623), CALMET (version 5.8, level 070623), and CALPOST (version 6.221). You 

may wish to prepare a modeling protocol and consult with EPA Region 9 about the preparation of 

modeling inputs in accord with EPA guidance. Submit any information to: 

Thomas Webb 

US EPA (AIR-2) 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 
You can also reach Thomas at webb.thomas@epa.gov or by phone at 415-947-4139. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact Thomas Webb or 

myself(mckaughan.colleen@epa.gov, 520-498-0118). 

&~gh~~ Associate Director, Air Division 

cc:	 Henry R. Darwin, ADEQ 

Eric Massey, ADEQ
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Annual Report of Triangle Casting, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Denis M. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Triangle Casting, Inc.
  By: /s/Denis M. Snyder
 Denis M. Snyder,
 President, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer,
 Chairman of the Board of Directors
  February 10, 2011
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sandra Price :

:

v. : No. 1873 C.D. 2016

:

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :

Department of Transportation, :

Bureau of Driver Licensing, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

NOW, November 21, 2017, having considered appellee’s application for 

reargument, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
March 26, 2010 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0171 

Mr. Virgil Gottfried 

Director of Operations 

Samaritan’s Purse 

180 Corporate Aviation Drive 

North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 

Dear Mr. Gottfried: 

This is in response to your letter dated February 19, 2009, petitioning the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Samaritan’s Purse for an exemption from part 125. 

The current Samaritan’s Purse exemption request is based on an incorrect interpretation from the 

FAA which concluded that the DC-3 was not a transport category aircraft and that the 

supplemental type certificate (STC) conversion to a twin engine turbo-prop did not change the 

certification basis of the aircraft. After further review, that interpretation contained some 

conclusions that were incorrect. 

The petitioner’s DC-3 aircraft is a transport category airplane. The designation as transport 

category dates back to 1950 and was confirmed when the STC to Basler was issued. 

 

The petitioner’s request for exemption from part 125 was based on this incorrect interpretation of 

aircraft category and, therefore, is denied. The designation of the petitioner’s airplane as 

transport category is not the sole reason for denying this exemption request. As a matter of 

policy, the FAA has determined that routinely issuing deviations from all of part 125 for 

prolonged periods renders part 125 meaningless and defeats the purpose of the rules. Deviations 

granted under §125.3 are done for individual sections on a case-by-case basis and require that the 
2

operator show that it can maintain an equivalent level of safety. The petitioner’s request is 

considered a request for a blanket deviation, which we no longer consider. 

For the reasons above, we are denying your petition for exemption. Accordingly, 

Docket No. FAA-2009-0171 is being closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
255 La. 909

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John MORRIS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: John Morris applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of either our original or supervisory jurisdiction.