alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

OSWALDO OROZCO SAUCEDA, a.k.a.

Oswaldo Orozco,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50373

D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00199-RGK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Oswaldo Orozco Sauceda appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for being an illegal

alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

FILED

OCT 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Orozco Sauceda’s

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Orozco Sauceda the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed. 

Orozco Sauceda waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the

exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also

waived the right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s

calculation of his criminal history category. Our independent review of the record

pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds

for relief as to Orozco Sauceda’s plea or the criminal history category calculated

by the court. We therefore affirm as to those issues. We dismiss the remainder of

the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582

F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 14-50373
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of Vicor Technologies, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this ‘‘Report’’), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of operations as of and for the periods covered therein.

/s/ David H. Fater                                    David H. FaterPresident andChief Executive and Financial Officer

August 14, 2007

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### Benjamin B. MATHEWS v. Vicki Fisk, Wife of Benjamin B. MATHEWS.

No. 87-C-2122.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Mathews, Benjamin B.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-*4590200; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 251-286.

Prior report: La.App., 512 So.2d 1228.

„ . . Denied.
**Exhibit
        23.1**
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**
 
 
 November
          2, 2007
 
 Board
        of
        Directors
 Charys
        Holding Company, Inc.
 Atlanta,
        Georgia
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB filed on or
        about November
        2, 2007of the report dated October 19, 2007, relating to the
        consolidated financial statements of Charys Holding Company, Inc. for the
        year
        ended April 30, 2007, and to our inclusion as a named expert.  Our
        report included an explanatory paragraph regarding Charys’ ability to continue
        as a going concern.
 
 
 /s/  Miller
        Ray Houser & Stewart LLP
 
 Miller
        Ray Houser & Stewart LLP
 99
        West
        Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 200
 Atlanta,
        Georgia 30305
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Theodora Lee McAlister, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00068

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 276th District Court of Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.

F14447 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and

Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Theodora Lee McAlister, has adequately indicated h er

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 30, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16249-16250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6652]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Cancellation of Customs Broker Licenses Due to Death of 
the License Holder

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: General notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Title 19 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations at section 111.51(a), the following individual 
Customs broker licenses and any and all permits have been cancelled due 
to the death of the broker:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Name                  License No.         Port name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Verne Lund....................         13241  Los Angeles.
Robert Hough......................         06509  New York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 16250]]

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Richard F. DiNucci,
Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2012-6652 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### Garland P. AYCOCK, Jr., D.D.S. and Mary Folse Aycock v. ALLIED ENTERPRISES, INC., James E. Gueydan, Director, Dr. Ray Cinnater, Director, James Buquet, Jr., Director, Dr. Sidney Warren, Jr., Director, and Louis Gueniot, Director. Dr. and Mrs. Anthony HERQUES v. ALLIED ENTERPRISES, INC., James E. Gueydan, Director, Dr. Ray Cinnater, Director, James Buquet, Jr., Director, Dr. Sidney Warren, Jr., Director, and Louis Gueniot, Director.

No. 87-C-2691.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1988.

In re Aycock, Garland P. Jr., D.D.S.; Aycock, Mary Folse; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA86 1424, CA86 1425; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, Nos. 70954, 71145.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 303.

Denied.

WATSON and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Resource-related Application in Congenital Heart Diseases (R24).                    

*Date:*                         April 17, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call)                    

*Contact Person:*                         Keary A Cope, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-2222,                         *copeka@mail.nih.gov*

                        (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases                               ( print page 16845)                            and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)                    

Dated: March 15, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-6954 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.21

[SCOTSMAN INDUSTRIES LETTERHEAD]



October 20, 1997




TO:      Ludwig Klein                        cc:      M. de St. Paer

This letter is intended to confirm our discussions and agreement regarding your
employment at Hartek. We have agreed to extend your current employment contract
that expires at the end of January 1998 to the end of March 1998. We have also
agreed effective at that time and for a duration of one year, you would continue
to work for Hartek/Whitlenge at one-half pay and one-half time.

You know that both Mike and I respect and appreciate the contributions you have
made at Hartek and believe strongly that you can continue to contribute there
during the management transition and, if interested, in other areas. I think
this continued relationship is very good for all parties.

If under German law or for your own needs we need to modify or develop a
contract for the above employment relationship, please have those documents
prepared and forward to me.




/s/ R. C. Osborne
R. C. Osborne

RCO:dm
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Richard J. Carbone, Chief Financial Officer of The PrudentialInsurance Company of America, hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2007, containing the financial statements of The Prudential VariableContract Real Property Account (a separate account of The Prudential Insurance Company of America)and The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of The Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Account andThe Prudential Variable Contract Real Property Partnership.       Date: March 21, 2008
#### Ralph NORMAN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58589.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 10, 1989.

Ralph Norman, Parchman, pro se.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen., by Charles W. Maris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Presiding Justice for the Court:

On September 21, 1983, the appellant Ralph Norman was charged by separate criminal affidavits with One count of rape and two counts of burglary of an occupied dwelling. One of the burglary charges arose out of the same occurrence as did the rape charge, i.e., the burglary charge was predicated on the appellant’s breaking and entering with the intent to assault the occupants of the dwelling, including the rape victim.

*1164Norman waived indictment on the charges, and on February 23, 1984, he pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Harrison County to each of the charges. Norman was sentenced to thirty years on the rape charge and fifteen years on each of the burglary charges. All the sentences were to run concurrently, giving Norman thirty years to serve.

On March 30, 1987, Norman filed a motion to set aside the rape conviction, pursuant to the Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, Miss.Code Ann. § 99-39-1 *et seq.*(Supp.1988) (effective April 17, 1984). Norman alleged that the conviction and sentence on the rape charge subjected him to double jeopardy, in that the rape charge arose out of the same facts and circumstances which gave rise to one of the burglary convictions.

On April 8,1987, the circuit court denied Norman’s motion with prejudice. The court found that Norman’s conviction and sentence on the rape charge did not violate the double jeopardy clauses of either the state or federal constitutions.

Aggrieved by the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, Norman has perfected a *pro se*appeal to this Court, and has assigned one error:

> THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT APPELLANT’S CONVICTION ON THE RAPE CHARGE DID NOT VIOLATE THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSES OF THE UNITED STATES AND MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTIONS.

Norman contends that his conviction on the rape charge is unconstitutional because the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Mississippi Constitutions prohibit double punishment where the charge of breaking and entering with the intent to assault and the charge of rape arise out of the same occurrence.

We addressed this same issue in *Smith v. State,*429 So.2d 252 (Miss.1983). There we held that Smith’s trial and conviction for the crime of burglary did not subject him to double jeopardy, even though Smith had earlier been tried and convicted for the crime of rape arising out of the same general facts and circumstances. Our holding in *Smith*is dispositive of Norman’s assignment of error.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Harrison County denying Norman’s motion for post-conviction relief should be and is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ., concur.
#### WRIGHT BROS. CORPORATION and John J. Wright v. Herman D. COLOMB, M.D., Margaret Colomb, and Uptown Square Wine Merchants, Inc.

No. 88-C-0143.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Wright, Bros. Corp.; Wright, John J.; applying for reconsideration of writ denial of January 29, 1988, 519 So.2d 110; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-7647; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, Nos. 84-1596, 85-3291.

Reconsideration denied.
From: Peter Roos [ mailto:roos@bridgerphotonics.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 6:38 PM

To: A

- AND

- R

- DOCKET; Docket@epa.gov Cc: Thorpe, Michael Subject: Attn: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0505

Dear EPA, Bridger Photonics, Inc. wishes to alert the EPA to new methane detection and imaging technology that is under development at our company and funded by

the DOE. We are developing optical gas imag ing (OGI) technology that is based on laser wavelength modulation spectroscopy rather than the traditional
infrared camera OGI. The anticipated benefits of this technology are:

1. Remote detection that doesn't require physical contact with the gas like Method 21 instruments (e.g., organic vapor analyzers, flame ionization detectors).

2. 3D terrestrial maps/imagery with gas concentration overlays (which is not provided by camera OGI) 3. Mobile detection, either ground

- based or airborne, with automated s can paths 4. Geo

- location of data products to enable repeatable and verifiable scans 5. Rapid scans covering >100 m^2 in
under 5 minutes 6. High gas concentration sensitivity (<10 ppm

- m for distances up to 50 meters) which is estimated to be more than a n order of magnitude better than

camera OGI.

7. No sensitivity to background or thermal radiation, unlike camera OGI.

If you have any questions or would like additional information on this technology, please contact us at info@bridgerphotonics.com

Best regards,

Pete

-- Dr. Peter Roos
Chief Executive Officer

Bridger Photonics, Inc. 2310 University Way, Bldg 4

- 4
Bozeman, MT 59715

----------------------------
#### Donnis George KICHLER v. Ruth Ann KICHLER.

Civ. 6055.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1988.

*1075W. Donald Bolton, Jr., and Thack H. Dyson, Foster, Bolton & Dyson, Foley, for appellant.

Mary E. Murchison of Murchison and Sutley, Foley, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a domestic relations case.

The following is pertinently revealed by the record before this court.

The parties were divorced on December 18,1985. On January 3, 1986, the husband filed a motion for new trial. The motion was not ruled on by the trial court within ninety days. On November 24, 1986, the trial court “modified” the original divorce decree. The husband thereafter filed a motion to set aside the modified decree entered by the court in November 1986. The trial court denied the husband’s motion and this appeal followed.

The husband contends that his motion for new trial was denied by the trial court insofar as the court failed to rule on the motion within ninety days as required by Rule 59.1, Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. He argues, therefore, that the court’s subsequent modification of the original divorce decree was void and without effect since it was issued after the expiration of the ninety-day period. We agree.

The record, as reviewed by this court on appeal, does not show any action taken by the court with respect to the husband’s motion for new trial within ninety days or any evidence of an agreement of the parties such as to extend the time period as required by Rule 59.1. Where there is no evidence in the record of any “express consent” of the parties to extend the ninety-day period within which a court must act on a motion for new trial, and where the record is absent of any such action on the motion by the court within the required period of time, any order issued by the court after the ninety-day period is void and of no force or effect. *Harrison v. Alabama Power Co.,*371 So.2d 19 (Ala. 1979); *Carnes v. Carnes,*365 So.2d 981 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); *Personnel Board for Mobile County v. Bronstein,*354 So.2d 8 (Ala.Civ.App.1977).

The court’s modification of the original divorce decree was, therefore, entered without proper jurisdiction since it was issued after the denial of the motion for new trial. We accordingly hold such order as entered in November 1986 to be void and of no force or effect.

We note that this court is bound by the record as submitted for review on appeal. *King v. Smith,*288 Ala. 215, 259 So.2d 244 (1972). Pertinently, the record is devoid of any evidence of an express agreement between the parties meeting the Rule 59.1 requirement that would have served to extend the time within which the trial court could have acted on the husband’s motion for new trial. We hardly need state that we can consider only what is contained in the record and cannot consider statements in brief which are not supported by the record. *King,*288 Ala. 215, 259 So.2d 244.

This case is due to be reversed and remanded for entry of an order consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BRADLEY, P.J., and INGRAM, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Julius C. THOMAS v. Warden DEES.

No. 89-KH-0082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 27, 1989.

In re Thomas, Julius C.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory, remedial and mandamus writs; Parish of West Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 8-85-235.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Collins & Aikman Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-34569, No. 33-60997, No. 33-53321 and No. 33-53323) on Form S-8 of Collins &
Aikman Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of Collins & Aikman Corporation and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
common stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows, for the year then ended,
and all related financial statement schedules, which report appears in the
December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Collins & Aikman Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Detroit, Michigan
March 15, 2003
#### Rodney Michael DEROUEN v. Betty DEROUEN.

No. 86-C-2409.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1987.

In re Derouen, Betty; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1136; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “H”, No. 85-2245.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 1341.

Writ granted. Judgment of the court of appeal is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for a new trial. The *106petition prayed for a “judicial partition of community property as set forth in paragraph I of the sworn detailed descriptive list of community property attached hereto and made a part hereof and labelled Exhibit P-1 for identification.” La.Code of Civil Procedure article 1703, which dictates the scope of a dafault judgment, is applicable here either directly or by analogy. Article 1703 provides as follows: “A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that demanded in the petition.” La.Code Civ.Proc.Ann. art. 1703 (West 1961). On remand the court should proceed in accordance with R.S. 9:2801.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard LAY.

No. 87-KH-2334.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 74762; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 0386.

Denied.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000
18 12 06 00 08/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL