alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 23-20011 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee , versus Martin Morin Nino, Defendant—Appellant . ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-330-1

______________________________ Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appo inted to represent Martin Morin Nino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Morin Nino has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 28, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20011 Document: 00516874105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/28/2023No. 23-20011

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordin gly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED . See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 23-20011 Document: 00516874105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/28/2023
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7292]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees 
From the Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center in Winchester, 
MA, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and 
Human Services.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: NIOSH gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a 
decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from 
the Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center in Winchester, 
Massachusetts, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. 
The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject 
to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
    Facility: Winchester Engineering and Analytical Center.
    Location: Winchester, Massachusetts.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees of the Department of 
Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and 
subcontractors.
    Period of Employment: October 1, 1952 to December 31, 1961.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bffbfcfeecfffcfbfc91f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f2b2c2e3c2f2c2b2c41282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-7292 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# -RmJU. /o.c-0 *SsfG2Z/2LOlS'

~ftO-&Uwz, ai&jubLZAjl A

y-aw^r 

# _^_^__sz/ _^ua'/^^--IX-/3:^z4. nn, RECEIVED IN .COURT-QF-GRIMINAt-APPEACS_ SEP23 2015 

### ^tosia.Cteik 

# sw-t+a-jgfflg CRIMINAL APPEAL StcP~2j; u^4 Abel Acosta, Clem

## witnesses against him, and shall have <^73*^TM?ErLt ofa grand 

# favor. No person shallbeheldto, answe,^. «^-«^'^ % 84fll presented by counsel mcludes the right to consult inprivate wun ^u^> 

## Except as otherwise provided ^f*^^1?^ 8roceedingS have been initiated and requests appointed counsel and ifadversarial judicial piu e court or the courts' designee receives the defendant s
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self-
Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self-Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-(888) 912-1227 or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self-Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee will be held 
Tuesday, February 21, 2012, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Patricia 
Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-(888) 912-1227 
or (414) 231-2360, or write TAP Office, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West 
Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web 
site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-760 Filed 1-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
The Honorable Ronald L. Wilson Opinion No. R-765

Criminal District Attorney Galveston County 405 County Courthouse Galveston, Texas 77550 Re: Whether presentation of a valid driver's license in court is an absolute defense to a charge of operating a **motor** vehicle without having a driver's license in immediate possession.
Dear Mr. Wilson:
you have requested our opinion regarding whether presentation of a valid driver's license in court is an absolute defense to a charge **of** operating a motor vehicle without having a driver's license in one's immediate possession. Section 13 of article 6687b,V.T.C.S., provides, in pertinent part:

Every person shall have an operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license inhis immediatepossession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the sameupon demand of a magistrate or any officer of a court of competent jurisdictionor any peace officer. Any personwho violates this Section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor "
. . . It shallbe a defense to any charge under this Section that the person so charged produce in court an operator's, commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license theretofore issued to such person and valid at the time of his arrest.
. . . (Emphasisadded).I

.

5-e I!anorableKonaldL.Wilson - page i (H-765)

Section 13makes clear that, whichever of its terms a person might be chargedwith vrolating,hemay establish a defense to that chargeby producing a valid driver's license in court. The effect of such a defense is set forth in section 2.03(e)of the Texas Penal Code:

A ground of defense in a penal law that is notplainly labeled inaccordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense. Thus, it is our opinion that thepresentation of a valid driver's license incourt is an absolutedefense to a charge of operating amotor vehicle without having a driver's license in one's immediatepossession. Cf.Attorney General Opinion O-3907 (1941). -
SUMMARY It is our opinion that thepresentation of a validdriver's license in court is an absolutedefense to a charge of operating a motor vehiclewithout having a driver's license in one's immediatepossession. Very trulyyours, 

# . a &&?J&&

OHN L. HILL AttorneyGeneral of Texas

Opinion Committee jwb

p. '$231
#### VICTORY TEMPLE ASSEMBLY OF GOD v. Raoul GALAN, Jr., Recorder of Mortgages for the Parish of Jefferson.

No. 87-C-0622.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Miller, Ralph R., applying for rehearing of the April 20, 1987, 504 So.2d 869, granting of writ of certiorari and/or review to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 86-CA-116, 86-CA-118; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. C, Nos. 202-438, 214-013.

Rehearing denied.

DIXON, C.J., would grant the rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2



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 of QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas E. Nickerson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 12, 2004



/s/ Douglas E. NickersonDouglas E. NickersonChief Financial Officer




Page 30
EIA

Facility Code Facility Name Boiler ID 

### Duke Marshall Marshall Unit 4

1 8/4/2010 8:08 8/4/2010 2 8/4/2010 9:39 8/4/2010 3 8/4/2010 11:08 8/4/2010 Run Number Test Start Date Test Start Time Test End DateMeasured Value (ppm) Basis (Wet or Dry) Test Method Used



### 9:19 [<0.0596] Dry Method 26A 

### 10:51 [<0.0584] Dry Method 26A 

### 12:20 [<0.0611] Dry Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Method 26A Test End Time Chlorine Emission Test ResultsData Flag (ADL,

BDL, DDL) Test Method

Comments 

### BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00017] 12.9 BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00017] 12.9 BDL RL based on MDL [<0.00018] 13.3 Calculated Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu) Steam Output

(1000 lb/hr) Total Heat

Input (mmBtu/hr) Flue Gas

Moisture (%)Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method 

### 11.58 8.03 

### 1,892,416 123.3 11.64 7.99 1,940,845 123.6 11.64 7.94 1,939,495 124.1 Flue Gas CO 2(%) Flue Gas

O 2(%) Flue Gas

Flow Rate (dscfm) Flue Gas

Temperature (F) Fuel #1Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method Fuel Input Rate Fuel Type Units of Me asure Me asurement

Method Fuel #2 Fuel #3Fuel Input

Rate Fuel Type Units of Measure Measurement

Method Other Supporting Information Fuel #4
#### State of Minnesota *vs.*William F. Thompson.

June 2, 1884.

Indictment — -Failure to arraign Defendant — Dismissal.—Several indictments, charging a defendant with similar offences, having been found at one term of the court, the neglect of the state, during three succeeding terms, to arraign the defendant upon one of such indictments, is not excused by facts which had led to the continuance of trial upon the other indictments during the intervening time. The defendant should have been arraigned upon all indictments found against him.

Case certified from the district court for Hennepin county, *Young,*J., presiding.

*J. G. Woolley,*for the State.

*Hart <& Breioer,*for defendant.

*By the Court.*

At the February term, 1883, three indictments were found against the defendant, charging several offences of embezzlement. He was then arraigned upon one only of these indictments. At the following term, May, 1883, he was tried and acquitted. He was then arraigned upon another of the indictments. The trial was continued from term to term, and is now pending. At the May term, 1884, the defendant was arraigned upon the third indictment. Three-terms of court intervened between that at which the indictments were found and that at which the last arraignment was made. The defendant moved that this last indictment be dismissed. No sufficient cause is shown for the delay of the state in proceeding to an arraignment. Seasons which may have been sufficient for the continuance of the trial upon the other indictments were not a sufficient cause for not arraigning the defendant upon all indictments against him. The indictment should have been dismissed.

Cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the same.
50092.

#### JACKSON v. YOUNG.

Quillian, Judge.

Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court from the dismissal by the trial court of the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict for the defendant. The appeal has been transferred to this court. *Held:*

The original notice of appeal was filed June 28,1973, no transcript was filed and over one year later on July 25, 1974 the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal. The plaintiff responded contending that because of poverty *369she was unable to pay the costs for the reporter to file the transcript of proceedings; that the pauper’s affidavit previously filed by the plaintiff should be sufficient to obviate the necessity of paying for the transcript.

Argued January 10, 1975

Decided February 26, 1975

Rehearing denied March 24, 1975.

*R. John Genins,*for appellant.

*Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, F. Clay Bush,*for appellee.

The Georgia Supreme Court has determined that payment for a transcript is not included as part of court costs. *Stone Mountain Memorial Assn. v. Stone Mountain Scenic Railroad,*232 Ga. 92 (205 SE2d 293), overruling the decision of *Barnett v. Thomas,*129 Ga. App. 583 (200 SE2d 327), to the contrary. Moreover, that court has further held that a pauper’s affidavit in a civil case does not relieve appellant from payment of the cost of having the trial transcript prepared by the official court reporter. *Brand v. Montega Corp.,*233 Ga. 35 (209 SE2d 583). Since we are bound by the above decisions, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to show any excuse for the failure to have the transcript timely filed. On the record before us the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
### Company Closed-cell Foam Product Blowing Agent Charge

Arkema Forane® 142b/22 HCFC-141b/22 10 %bw Arkema Forane® 134a HFC-134a 9.3 %bw Dow Voracor CY 3053 Series - - Dow BLUECOR® Extruded Polystyrene Sheet HFC-152a < 5%

Dow FROTH-PAKTM 120 HFC Polyurethane Foam System HFC-134a 5 – 10 %

Dupont Formacel® Z-2 HFC-152a - Dupont Formacel® Z-4 HFC-134a - Dupont Formacel® S HCFC-22 1.194 g/cc Owens Corning Foamular® Extruded Polystyrene Insulation –

Zero Ozone Depletion Formula - -

Owens Corning Foamular® Extruded Polystyrene Insulation HCFC-142b 7-12 %bw
#### WJA REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT CLAIMS, INC., a Minnesota corporation; Equitable Benefit Plans, Inc., a Florida corporation; and the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Appellees.

No. 85-1619.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 6, 1986.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold Ginsberg, William P. Cagney, III, Miami, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and William J. Gallwey, III, Miami, and Baron J. Drexel, for appel-lees.

*122Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding that, contrary to the specific terms of the parties’ Stop Loss Agreement, the payment of the claim for which WJA Realty Limited Partnership [WJA] seeks reimbursement was not made until after the expiration of the effective period of the excess coverage insurance policy, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of WJA’s second amended complaint. *See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mirlenbrink,*345 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

We reject WJA’s argument that its payment of the June 1984, premium estopped Hartford from denying excess coverage for a claim paid in July 1984. Estoppel and waiver are inapplicable for two reasons: first, Hartford returned the June premium payment to WJA, *cf. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dana,*434 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (insurance company estopped from denying coverage where injury occurred after past-due premium paid and insurer retained past-due premium); *Mixon v. Allstate Insurance Co.,*388 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (unconditional acceptance of premium payment constituted waiver of insurer’s right to contend policy lapsed), *review denied,*397 So.2d 777 (Fla.1981); second, WJA did not tender a premium payment for July, the month in which the claim was paid. Thus, Hartford was not required to reimburse WJA for its payment of the claim at issue.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 12, 2012.

    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 16, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing 
the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ac5c3d8cbd5d9ffe8e7e3f9f9e3e5e4cac5c7c8a4cfc5daa4cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe0e6fdeef0fcdacdc2c6dcdcc6c0c1efe0e2ed81eae0ff81e8e0f9">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 
1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or on-
line at www.PRAComment.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69393b28291d1b0c081a1c1b10470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5a5a7b4b5818790948680878cdb929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, or the 
entire information collection request may be found at www.reginfo.gov.

International Affairs

    OMB Number: 1505-0199.
    Type of Review: Revision a currently approved collection.
    Title: Report of Holdings of, and Transactions in, Financial 
Derivatives Contracts with Foreign Residents.
    Form: TIC Form D.
    Abstract: Form D is required by law and is designed to collect 
timely information on International portfolio capital movements, 
including U.S. residents' holdings of, and transactions in, financial 
derivatives contracts with foreign residents. The information will be 
used in the computation of the U.S. balance of payments accounts and 
international investments position, as well as in the formulation of 
U.S. International financial and monetary policies.
    Affected Public: Private Sector: businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,200.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-6305 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence LEWIS.

No. KW 87 0641.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 22, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1987.

Joseph Erwin Kopsa, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Clarence Lewis, in pro. per.

WRIT GRANTED: The District Court’s order of April 3, 1987, dismissing relator’s petition with prejudice is vacated, and the matter is REMANDED to the District Court.

The Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure promulgated in accordance with Acts 1985, No. 672 § 1 does not govern this post-conviction habeas corpus. *Cf. State v. Bartie,*501 So.2d 260 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986).

ON REHEARING

REHEARING DENIED: In the interests of justice, since this area of law is unsettled and since this matter originated as a civil proceeding, we feel the rehearing delay for civil matters should apply. This application is, therefore, timely. *See*Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-18.-2(b).

However, we find respondent’s argument to be without merit. The cases of *Jackson v. Phelps,*506 So.2d 515 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), *writ denied*508 So.2d 829 (La.1987), and *State ex rel. Bartie v. State,*501 So.2d 260 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986), are not in conflict. *Bartie*dealt with a specific situation in which a prisoner contended that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections had miscalculated his time served and that, upon proper calculation, he was entitled to immediate release. This Court found that such an action should be categorized as a post-conviction habeas corpus action, for which venue is provided under La.R.S. 15:571.15. The *Jackson*case dealt merely with the claim of an inmate that he was erroneously being denied good time by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections because he was statutorily ineligible for good time. *Jackson*does not indicate that plaintiff therein alleged that he was entitled to immediate release. *Jackson*was a civil matter.

In the instant case, relator contends that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections had erroneously denied him proper good time credit and that, if properly credited, he would be entitled to immediate release. There is no distinction in the remedy afforded relator from the remedy afforded in *Bartie.*Both inmates contend that they are entitled to immediate release. The fact that one inmate bases his claim upon application of good time credit and another bases his claim upon calculation of time served is merely a difference without a distinction. Habeas corpus proceedings *153are excluded from the procedures promulgated pursuant to the Corrections Administrative Procedure Act. *See*La.R.S. 15:1172; 11 Louisiana Register 1089-1090 (1985).