alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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. 98-40796

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SCOTT MARK LAIR,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CR-287-1

__________________________________________

August 4, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scott Mark Lair appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion

for new trial based on newly discovered evidence of his alleged mental incompetence and erred in

denying his request for a downward departure based on diminished mental capacity.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. United States v. Jaramillo, 42

F.3d 920, 924 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202, 212 (5th Cir. 1993). 

With regard to the district court’s refusal to depart downward, this court has jurisdiction if

a refusal to depart downward was premised upon a mistaken conclusion that the guidelines do not
2

permit such a departure, but lacks jurisdiction if the refusal was premised on a determination that

a departure was not warranted under the facts of the case. United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247,

263 (5th Cir.)(en banc), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 426 (1998). There is nothing in the record to

indicate that the district court erroneously believed that it lacked authority to depart downward. 

See United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir. 1999)(citing United States v.

Willey, 57 F.3d 1374, 1392 n. 32 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Valencia-Gonzales,

172 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1999). As a result, this court does not have jurisdiction to review

the district court’s refusal to downwardly depart. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3777

To terminate funds for the Office of Technology Assessment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1994

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To terminate funds for the Office of Technology Assessment.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act shall be cited as the ‘‘Office of Technology

5 Assessment Termination Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATE FUNDS FOR OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY

7 ASSESSMENT.

8 No funds shall be appropriated for the Office of Tech9 nology Assessment beginning in fiscal year 1995.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We have issued our reportdated March 10, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedules included in the Annual Report of Fiberstars, Inc. on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005.  We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statements of Fiberstars, Inc.on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-122686, effective February 10,2005; File No. 333-68844, effective August 31, 2001; File No. 333-52042,effective December 18, 2000; File No. 333-61855, effective August 19,1998; File No. 333-28423, effective June 4, 1997; and File No. 33-85664,effective October 27, 1994).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 10, 2006

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3387 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3387

  To suspend temporarily the duty on Neurolite (complete dosage kits).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 1993

 Mr. Meehan (for himself and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on Neurolite (complete dosage kits).

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

SECTION 1. NEUROLITE.

    Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by inserting in numerical sequence the 
following new heading:

      

       ``  9902.31.12  Neurolite (complete dosage kits) (provided for in                           No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                        subheading 3006.30.50)..................................  Free                                                31/94           ''

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies with respect to goods 
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 
15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 of Greentech Transportation Industries
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ian B. McAvoy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
17th day of March, 2011.


/s/ Ian B. McAvoy
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### VIKING CONNECTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. W. H. YATES, and Dorcas P. Yates, Appellees.

No. 73-1063.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 22, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; John Ferris, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Calendar No. 439

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3724

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

McMahon Federal Building’’.in Bridgeport, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Brien

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
IIA

★(Star Print)

Calendar No. 439

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3724

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal

Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 915 Lafay5 ette Boulevard in Bridgeport, Connecticut, shall be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Build7 ing’’.
2

HR 3724 PCS1S

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the court4 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-0906

_____________________________

SHERRI LYNN RENNER,

Appellant,

v.

CARLOS MUÑIZ, in his official 

capacity as Chief Justice of the 

Supreme Court of Florida; and 

JOSHUA DOYLE, in his official 

capacity as Executive Director of 

The Florida Bar.

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

J. Layne Smith, Judge.

April 8, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Sherri L. Renner, pro se, Appellant.

M. Hope Keating, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for 

Appellee Joshua Doyle.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Charles Joseph F. Schreiber 

Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee

Chief Justice.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18248]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123; DA 18-818]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau seeks comment on 
two Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions).

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before 
September 7, 2018. Replies to oppositions must be filed on or before 
September 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Scott, Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, at: (202) 418-1264; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c18ca8a2a9a0a4adef92a2aeb5b581a7a2a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="74391d171c1511185a27171b0000341217175a131b02">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, DA 18-818, released August 6, 2018. The full text of the 
Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference 
Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107272931103590/Sprint%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20REDACTED%20VERSION%20filed%20072718.pdf and https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107091809005003/Sprint%20Petition%20re%20ASR%20filed%20070918.pdf. The Commission will 
not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because 
no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: IP CTS Modernization Reform, Report and Order and 
Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-79, published at 83 FR 30082, June 27, 2018, 
in CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123. This document is being published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), 
(g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding by Scott R. Freiermuth, on behalf of Sprint 
Corporation.

Federal Communications Commission.
Eliot Greenwald,
Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2018-18248 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.3

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as

Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Digital Realty Trust, L.P. (the Operating Partnership) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership at the dates and for the periods
indicated.

Dated: May 9, 2011



|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ MICHAEL F. FOUST                                                                                  
|Michael F. Foust                                                                                      
|Chief Executive Officer Digital Realty Trust, Inc., sole general partner of Digital Realty Trust,
L.P.

Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being
furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Operating Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Operating Partnership filed
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Operating Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
8/10/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0705

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­0705

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Monday, August 10, 2015 2:23 PM

To: Info@GowdyBrothers.com; Anthony@360deorbittours.com

Dear Mr. Pastoriza:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015−0705).

This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 8/24/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­9677.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
# C_2015179EN.01000701.xml

| 2.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/7

---

Notification from the Republic of Bulgaria pursuant to Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

(2015/C 179/04)

Bulgaria notifies the information below pursuant to Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1).

1

In accordance with the Underground Natural Resources Act (promulgated in State Gazette No 23 of 12 March 1999, [...], amended in SG No 14 of 20 February 2015), the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations to prospect and/or explore for oil and gas and the granting of concessions to extract oil and gas on the proposal of the Minister for Energy. The Council of Ministers accordingly empowers the Minister of Energy to conclude a contract for prospecting and/or exploring for oil and gas or to conclude a contract for extracting oil and gas.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3863 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3863

To designate the Post Office building located at 401 E. South Street in 
    Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``Medgar Wiley Evers Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1994

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Post Office building located at 401 E. South Street in 
    Jackson, Mississippi, as the ``Medgar Wiley Evers Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Post Office building located at 401 E. South Street in Jackson, 
Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the ``Medgar Wiley Evers 
Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Medgar Wiley Evers Post 
Office''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Madalin GAUTREAU, Melvin Gautreau, Robert Gautreau and Maxwell Gautreau, Jr. v. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL INS. CO. and Ourso Funeral Home, Inc.

No. 60423.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 1977.

In re: Ourso Funeral Home applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension, 347 So.2d 1295.

Application denied.
PET-ERSBURG 

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

January 28, 2013 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington D.C. 20590 

.. · ... -: 

--.. i -~ 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Cor -L. Gustavus, Petersburg, 

Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 Vov; 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines to continue to provide 

essential air service to our community. 

Alaska's service connects Southeast Alaska passengers to one or more major communities of 

interest, with single-plane service to Anchorage, Juneau, Ketchikan or Seattle. From these 

hubs, our community can access the airline's extensive route system and benefit from its 

marketing relationships with other carriers. The passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska 

Airlines proposes to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that 

other carriers simply cannot provide. 

Further, Alaska Airlines aircraft are equipped with Required Navigation Performance 

Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement weather, 

thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to 

dependably reach the community. 

Simply put, Alaska Airlines' service is critical to the economic well being of our community and 

we support their application to provide Essential Air Service to Southeast Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

Sally~ Executive Director 

Petersburg Chamber of Commerce 

P.O. Box 649 • Petersburg, Alaska 99833 

907 • 772 • 3646 Email: pcoc@alaska.com www.petersburg.org
#### Edward CHAYTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, and Larry Kramert, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olían, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Starling v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So.2d 645.
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 this Quarterly Report of Prosalutis Holdings Inc., on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mauricio Gonzales, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ending March 31, 2016, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and March 31, 2016 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Prosalutis Holdings Inc..     March 10, 2017By:/s/Mauricio GonzalesMauricio GonzalesChief Executive Officer
DYCK-O’NEAL, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

RAUL MACEDA EGUI, 

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. 1D17-0920

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 16, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Kevin A. Blazs, Judge.

David M. Snyder, David M. Snyder Professional Association, Tampa, Susan B. 

Morrison of the Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa, and Joshua D. 

Moore of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

Ryan G. Moore, First Coast Consumer Law, Jacksonville Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Higgins v. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc., 201 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2016) (holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for 

deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a 
2

deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a 

deficiency judgment); see also Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. v. Lanham, 214 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2017) (certifying conflict between this Court’s decision in Higgins and 

decisions by the other four district courts of appeal). 

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.