alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis MEZA FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50258.

D.C. No. CR-98-00063-AHS-2.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002 *.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*262MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Meza Fuentes appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 120-month sentence imposed for conspiracy to distribute and distribution of more than 5 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Fuentes’ counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no arguable issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

Counsel has identified and correctly rejected one potential issue for appeal, whether Fuentes was entitled to the benefits of the safety valve provision of United States Sentencing Guideline § 5C1.2. *See United States v. Miller,*151 F.3d 957, 958 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a defendant who fails to disclose all information concerning offenses that were part of the same course of conduct is not entitled to safety valve relief). Fuentes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Having conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83-84,109 S.Ct. 346,102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we conclude that there are no arguable appellate issues on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
258 La. 566

#### John W. COX v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 51407.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1971.

In re: John W. Cox and the City of New Orleans applying for writ of certiorari or review.

Writ refused. The remedies before the Court of Appeal have not been exhausted. Those remedies are adequate.
05/15/2012 14:22 5137911583 GEYGAN AND GEYGAN 

# Geygan & 

# Geygan, Ltd. AttorneysatLaw

8050 Hosbrook Road, Suite 107 Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 Telephone (513) 791-1673 Facsimile (513) 791-1683 Thof'llQs J. Geygan. Sr. (thomassr@goygan.com) Thomas J. Goygan, Jr. VIA FACSJMJLE (202-493-2251.) AND REGULARMAIL June 15,2012

DocketManagementFacility Attn: Comments to DocketNo. FAA-2012-0350 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE, Room W12-140 Washington, D. C. 20590 Re: fi'AA-2012"0350 Ladies and Gentlemen: PAGE 02/03

My name is Thomas 

### J. Gcygan, Sr. T can bereached atthe above address, phone number and email address. Tam a private pilot with instrumentrating with over 3,400 hours total flying time. I have a third class medical and have beenflying since 1957. I currently fly approximately 75 hours per year for pleasure only. I own two aircraft and am rebuilding a third. I am about to retire from my Jaw practice and expect to fly more. I 

### am writing in favor ofthe EAA/AOP Medical Exemption Request. The length oftime Thave been 

### flying and 

### my flight hours are an indication ofhow careful apilot I am. 

### IfI am suffering from a severe cold or any medical condition that would affect my abilityto :fly safely, I will not fly. I also use the three strike rule and 

### ifI have three problems with myself, mycarand my airplane on the 

### way to the airport, I consider each to 

### be a strike and 

### will not fly. It has been

### my rule for years. I consider seminars and**on~**line medical education courses necessary nowandhave taken them both through the internet as well as at the EAA convention in Oshkosh, and by CDs and 

### by the05/15/2012 14:22 5137911583
Docket Management Facility Attn: Comments to Docket**~o.** FAA-2012-0350 U.S. Department ofTransportation June 15,2012 

### Page2 GEYGAN AND GEYGAN PAGE 03/03

Amel'ican Bonanza Society Pilot Proficiency Course. I am fully aware thatthe pilot is the first to arrive at the scene ofan accident andtake more than the usual precautions to avoid accidents. I feel that 

### ifthe Medical Exemption

### Request is adopted by

### the FAA, 

### more people will 

### fly safer and the economy

### will benefit and FAA costs will go down. Please carefully consider the Medical 

### Exemption Request. Sincerely,
2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32702]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-162; RM-9112]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Hutchinson, KS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Gary L. Violet, allots 
Channel 240A at Hutchinson, Kansas. See 62 FR 41016, July 31,1997. 
Channel 240A can be allotted to Hutchinson in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the 
imposition of a site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 240A at 
Hutchinson are 38-04-54 NL and 97-55-42 WL. With this action, this 
proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective January 20, 1998. A filing window for Channel 240A at 
Hutchinson, Kansas, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue 
of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-162, adopted November 5, 1997, and 
released December 5, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Kansas, is 
amended by adding Channel 240A at Hutchinson.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-32702 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 17 - 00315 - CR OSCAR LONGORIA, APPE LLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013 - 438,023, Honorable John J. “ Trey ” McClendon III, Presiding 

### October 16 , 2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER , JJ. Appellant, Oscar Longoria , was convicted of manslaughter 1 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment . Because his notice of appeal was filed untimely, w e dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). In a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after sentence is

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 19.04 (West 2011 ).2

imposed or within ninety days after sentence is imposed if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a). A motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days after sentenced is imposed. See id. at 21.4(a) . We may extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days of the dead line, the appellant files a notice of appeal and a motion for extension. See id. at 26.3. I f a notice of appeal is not timely filed, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 198 . We have no authority to invoke Appellate R ule 2 to enlarge the time in which to file a notice of appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 2; Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant was sentenced on May 23, 2017. His notice of appeal or motion for new trial was , therefore, due within thirty days, by June 22. On June 26, appellant filed a motion for new trial. As the motion for new trial was not timely filed, the notice of appeal deadline was not extended to ninety days after sentence was imposed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a) (2) . On August 24, appellant filed a notice of appeal, over ninety days after his sentence was imposed. S ee id . at 26.2(a) (1), 26.3 . By letter dated A ugust 29 , this Court notified appellant’s counsel that the notice of appeal appeared to have been filed untimely and directed appellant to show why the Court has jurisdiction by September 8 . W e extended the response deadline , sua sponte , to October 5 . However, n o response has been filed to date .3

Because appellant’s untimely filed notice of appeal prevents this C ourt from acqui ring jurisdiction , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2 Per Curiam Do not publish.

2 Appellant may be entitled to relief by filing a post - conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out - of - time appeal. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (West 2015 ).
# Službeni list L 337/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0847
  doi:10.3000/19770847.L_2013.337.hrv |
| --- | --- |
| Službeni list
  Europske unije | L 337 |
| | |
| Hrvatsko izdanje | Zakonodavstvo | Svezak 56.14. prosinca 2013. |

ISSN 1977-0847

doi:10.3000/19770847.L_2013.337.hrv

Službeni list

Europske unije

L 337

Hrvatsko izdanje

Zakonodavstvo

Svezak 56.14. prosinca 2013.

---

| Sadržaj | | II.   Nezakonodavni akti | Stranica |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ODLUKE |
| | | 2013/719/EU |
| | * | Odluka Komisije od 16. studenoga 2012. – Državne Potpore SA.33305 (2012/C) i SA.29832 (2012/C) koje je provela Nizozemska za poduzetnika ING
  (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 8238)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Sadržaj

II.   Nezakonodavni akti

Stranica

ODLUKE

2013/719/EU

*

Odluka Komisije od 16. studenoga 2012. – Državne Potpore SA.33305 (2012/C) i SA.29832 (2012/C) koje je provela Nizozemska za poduzetnika ING
  (priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 8238)

   (
  1
  )

(priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 8238)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Tekst značajan za EGP |

---

(1)   Tekst značajan za EGP

1

| HR | Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.
  Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica. |
| --- | --- |

HR

Akti čiji su naslovi tiskani običnim slovima su oni koji se odnose na svakodnevno upravljanje poljoprivrednim pitanjima, a općenito vrijede ograničeno razdoblje.

Naslovi svih drugih akata tiskani su masnim slovima, a prethodi im zvjezdica.

---

II. Nezakonodavni akti

ODLUKE

| 14.12.2013 | HR | Službeni list Europske unije | L 337/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

HR

Službeni list Europske unije

L 337/1

---

ODLUKA KOMISIJE

od 16. studenoga 2012.

Državne Potpore SA.33305 (2012/C) i SA.29832 (2012/C) koje je provela Nizozemska za poduzetnika ING

(priopćeno pod brojem dokumenta C(2012) 8238)

(Vjerodostojan je samo tekst na engleskom jeziku)

(Tekst značajan za EGP)

(2013/719/EU)

Ovaj će dokument biti objavljen u Posebnom izdanju Službenog lista Europske unije na hrvatskom jeziku ako zadovolji potrebne uvjete.

---
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20599

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KENNETH O’KANE,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CR-92-1

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth O’Kane appeals his jury convictions for four counts of

tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. He argues that the

evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for tax

evasion for the years 1994 through 1997, that the Government did

not prove that the Internal Revenue Service made a tax assessment

or demand for the years 1994 through 1997, and that the Government

failed to prove the willfulness requirement of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.

A review of the evidence establishes that the district court’s
No. 03-20599

-2-

finding that O’Kane was guilty of four counts of tax evasion for

the years 1994 through 1997 is supported by “substantial evidence”

and that “any rational trier of fact could have found that the

evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” See United

States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2000). The

evidence established that there were tax deficiencies for the years

1994 through 1997, that O’Kane took numerous affirmative steps to

evade or attempt to evade taxes, and that he acted willfully.

See United States v. Townsend, 31 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 1994).

O’Kane argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to quash the indictment based on his claim that the

Government withheld “notices of deficiency issued for tax periods

1994 and 1995.” O’Kane has not established a violation of Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) as he has not shown that the

Government withheld such notices or that the notices would have

been favorable to the defense. See United States v. Burns,

162 F.3d 840, 851 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the district court

did not err in denying his motion to quash the indictment.

O’Kane argues that the district court erred in denying his

motion to require the Government to show its authority to act.

Although O’Kane filed this motion in the district court, he argues

for the first time on appeal that this motion was based on his

claim that the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional.

Therefore, review is limited to plain error. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). We have rejected on numerous
No. 03-20599

-3-

occasions attacks on the constitutionality of the federal income

tax laws. See Stelly v. Comm’r, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir.

1985). Therefore, O’Kane has not shown that the district court’s

denial of this motion was error, plain or otherwise. See Olano,

507 U.S. at 732-34.

AFFIRMED.
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

　

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Corning Natural Gas Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 (the "Report") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Michael I. German, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and I, Firouzeh Sarhangi, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

Dated:  May 12, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,551,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,551,840
<PP&E>                                     247,066,951
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,638,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             237,980,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,551,840
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 233,428,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               237,980,449
<SALES>                                     33,139,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,186,038
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                95,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             33,090,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         33,090,049
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                33,090,049
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.827
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.827


</TABLE>
#### Franklin KIMBLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-839.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Franklin Kimble, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on *182a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Air Products Internal Use Only

POLYCAT SA8 PMN_Attachment #1 - New Chemical Substance CAS Name and Number_Sanitized
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL ANTONIO PEREZ-CAMPOS, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-70581 

Agency No. A087-989-876 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Antonio Perez-Campos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70581 

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Madrigal v. Holder, 

716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez-Campos 

did not establish that the harm he suffered was on account of a protected ground

while enrolled in the police academy in El Salvador. See id. at 504 (concluding

active duty members of the military do not constitute a social group); see also 

Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Persecution occurring 

because a person is a current member of a police force or the military . . . is not on 

account of one of the grounds enumerated in the Act.”). Substantial evidence also 

supports the agency’s conclusion that Perez-Campos failed to establish it is more 

likely than not he will be persecuted if returned to El Salvador. See Fakhry v. 

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (evidence did not compel a finding 

that it is more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted upon his return to 

Senegal). Thus, Perez-Campos’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2333 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2333

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
      retail sale of infant formula if its use by date has passed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2021

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
      retail sale of infant formula if its use by date has passed.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Infant Formula Protection Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. EXPIRED INFANT FORMULA.

    (a) Prohibited Act.--Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(fff) The retail sale of infant formula if the use by date of 
such infant formula, as specified in the labeling of such formula in 
accordance with section 107.20 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations 
(or any successor regulations), has passed.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### GREATER MIAMI BEACH MOTEL ASSOCIATION, etc., a nonprofit corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY et al., Respondents.

No. 44227.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 11, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.