alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30215 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANK H. BETHLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(98-CR-159-ALL-C)

-------------------- August 20, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Frank H. Bethley appeals his sentence,
specifically co mplaining of a two-level upward departure in his

offense level based on two arrests for which he was not convicted.

We previously vacated Bethley’s sentence and remanded the case for

resentencing, holding that the departure was improper because the

district court failed to find Bethley guilty of the unadjudicated

offenses by a preponderance of the evidence. U nited States v.
Bethley
, No. 99-30546 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2000). On remand, the

district court reimposed the same upward departure after finding by2

a preponderance of the evidence that Bethley had committed the

o ffenses. On appeal, Bethley asserts that the district court

relied on an improper basis to depa rt from the applicable

Sentencing Guideli ne range because it relied only on the presentence report (PSR) to determine the facts re garding the

underlying offenses. Generally, a PSR bears sufficient indicia of

reliability to be considered as evid ence at sentencing. U nited

States v. Alford
, 142 F.3d 825, 831-32 (5th Cir. 1998 ). We have

never stated that the report cannot be used for determining the

guilt of an individua l who was arrested but not convicted. S ee

United States v. Cantu-Dominguez
, 898 F.2d 968, 970-71 (5th Cir.

1990).

Bethley also contends that the district c o urt improperly

concluded that the charges were dismissed after he pleaded guilty

to an offense in federal court, because he actually was convicted

by a jury of the federal charges. Bethley failed to object to this

factual finding in the district court, so we review it for plain

error. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.

1994)(en banc). Bethley cannot show that any error by the district

court in its determination of the disposition of the prior federal

proceeding affected his substantial rights. The sentence imposed

by the district court is

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00504-CV

Brooks Special Company and Jerry Barth, Appellants

v.

State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GV-09-002020, HONORABLE MARGARET A. COOPER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On December 18, 2012, we abated this appeal at the parties’ request while they

pursued settlement negotiations. The parties have filed a joint motion to set aside the district court’s

judgment and remand the cause for rendition of an agreed judgment. The parties represent that they

have agreed to a settlement in the form of an agreed judgment and permanent injunction and ask that

we set aside the district court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the cause to the

district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with their agreement. We reinstate the appeal,

grant the motion, set aside the district court’s judgment without regard to the merits, and remand the

cause to the district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).
_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Vacated and Remanded on Joint Motion

Filed: June 7, 2013

2
October 23, 2000

22777

#### Doe Children, In re

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997             JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997             OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,879                      40
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,148                  11,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     58,785                  49,522
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,437                  67,474
<PP&E>                                          18,223                  15,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,999                  91,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,697                  14,683
<BONDS>                                         53,394                  16,154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             6                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,085                  59,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,999                  91,497
<SALES>                                         30,450                  94,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,450                  94,455
<CGS>                                           19,498                  59,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,990                  25,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 814                   1,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    148                   8,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                        66                   3,274
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 82                   4,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                        82                   4,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02                     .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
March 14, 2005

26237

#### State v. Quiocho

Affirmed
#### State v. Han

17259

12/16/96

Affirmed
Item_5_2_5a_BVD/ page 1

Annex 18

**USA COMMENTS IN RED FONT**

CHAPTER 11.X.**INFECTION WITH BOVINE PESTIVIRUSES(BOVINE VIRAL DIARRHOEA)**

Article 11.X.1.

General provisions

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, bovine viral diarrhoea is defined as an *infection* of bovines (*Bos taurus*, *B. indicus* and *Bubalus bubalis*)~~(herafter ‘susceptible animals’)~~ with bovine viral diarrhoea virus type 1 (pestivirus A), type 2 (pestivirus B), ~~and~~or type 3 (pestivirus H) (here~~in~~after ‘bovine pestiviruses’).

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with bovine pestiviruses:

1)	bovine pestivirus, excluding vaccine strains, has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a ~~susceptible~~susceptible~~animal~~ bovine; or 

**RATIONALE:**The subfamily bovinae contains species not specified in the above definition. Recommend maintain usage of susceptible animals or shift to susceptible bovine.

2)	antigen or ~~ribo~~nucleic acid specific to bovine pestivirus, excluding vaccine strains, has been detected in a sample from a ~~susceptible animal~~ bovine.

Standards for diagnosis ~~diagnostic tests~~and vaccines, as well as information on the epidemiology, are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel T32 Diversity Training Grants, December 1, 2023, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 26, 2023, FR Document No. 2023-23751, 88 FRN 73863.                

This notice is being amended to change the meeting title to “The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel T32 Member Conflicts SEP.” The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 20, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-26020 Filed 11-24-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00248-CV

LISA YOUNG APPELLANT

V.

WILLIE VAUGHAN APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On October 7, 2010, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed 

as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless 

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within 

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Because appellant's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. 

DELIVERED: November 4, 2010
ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL ELIZABETHA_ BROVA4 CLERKOFSUPREMECOURT BY S'\/( DEPUTYCLERK PAUL MENDEZ MILLER, Appellant, vs. MELINDA SUE MILLER, N/KJA MELINDA LESINSKY,Res•ondent. No. 84489 

# FILE SEP 22 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion to modify child support and awarding attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County;Dawn Throne, Judge.

On April 13, 2022, the clerk of this court issued a notice directing appellant, among other things, to file and serve the fast track statement by May 23, 2022. When appellant failed to comply, this court entered an order on August 8, 2022, directingappellant tofile and serve the fast track statement by August 22, 2022. This court cautioned that failure to timely comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. See NRAP 3E(i). To date, appellant has not filed the fast track statement or otherwise communicated with this court. Accordingly, it appears that appellant has abandoned this appeal and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Hardesty

, J. Stiglich Herndon SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A .0gigtocc: Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division Paul Mendez Miller McFarling Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
20951

#### State v. Mok

Affirmed
Annex 21

CHAPTER 15.1.

**INFECTION WITH AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS**

[...]

Article 15.1.2.

Safe commodities

When authorising importation or transit of the following *commodities*, *Veterinary Authorities* should not require any ASF-related conditions, regardless of the ~~ASF status~~*animal health status*of the *exporting country* or *zone*:

1)	heat-treated *meat**products*in a hermetically sealed container with a F~~0~~0 value of 3 or above;

2)	gelatine~~.~~;

3)extruded dry pet food.

Other *commodities* of suids can be traded safely if in accordance with the relevant articles of this chapter.

[...]

____________________________

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 85104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26983]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404


Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (1950- )

CFR Correction

    This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register 
to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most 
recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

0
In Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 400 to 499, 
revised as of April 1, 2023, in Appendix I to Subpart P of Part 404, in 
Part B, section 101.00, revise the first sentence of paragraph C.7.c. 
to read as follows:

Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404--Listing of Impairments

* * * * *

Part B

* * * * *

101.00 Musculoskeletal Disorders.

* * * * *
    C. * * *
    7. * * *
    c. For 101.15, 101.16, 101.17, 101.18, 101.20C, 101.20D, 101.22, 
and 101.23, all of the required criteria must be present 
simultaneously, or within a close proximity of time, to satisfy the 
level of severity needed to meet the listing. * * *

[FR Doc. 2023-26983 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
966 P.2d 1113

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

May 27, 1998

20481

#### Thomas v. Capriotti

Affirmed
**K:. ~** **’ OFFICE**  **OF THE**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **1; AUSTIN** 

We have oarefuJly **~i.j,n ’** **a letter**  arltten Of ~svllls, T4xa8, ~waa’ forwarded .sohroeder. itten.by Ur. Turner s an~:admia%atration 8 wa8 neoeas.ary .ln order sister his estate. 8 owned 80x114 soaal **e land**  **was fbally**  **80** ax suit ma brought and le wa8 made under an or&w of ‘SPA judgpeot and that tha sum oi #B&lb was he Administrator after all debts iaoluding

**of ooyr54,**  have the papers in the tar suit ither do **w4** have the probate proceedings other judgment randered in the probete oourt On April 9, 2939, estate was finally olbeml. This order oonfornm to t&e of the e&eta etatutaa.., -.

,p--
Honorable CharLeg Loakhart,pa&e 2

, ‘u:e

do not think the land esoheetcd to the :itste; under Artialea3272 and 3273, it 1s yrovlCWl that ii” there Is any lend that has not been olaLm4A the county attorneymey bring a suit to esaheut the 1enA to the State. Sinae the oounty attorneydid not bring a suit to esahest the land and since the administration was oontlnued In forae and the Adnlnistretor ioontinueA

to oontrol the.propertyas Administratorfor the BsItate,ha should have rendered the property for taxes. If he Aid not render it, it was the duty of the tax ass44aor to ren- ; Aer.thepropertyegainst the Estete of Henry SohroeAer for tex- /es and It we8 ths oounty attorn4y*sr4sponslbUlty to bring 1suit to foreclosethis t5x lien and a sale iortcxes pnssed a good title unless underthe low.

Artialos same was reAeem4dwithin the period-allowe&

3844 to 3660, inalusive,proviCe th:it when .~ _ 'theperson 4ntltleU to en estatb does not alaim 88~ the addin- :istirator

shall psy the money to the State Treasurer,who shall ! hold same In the Estate Fund. It se4ms thet the $202.16which j.‘you have reoeived from the Administrator of tha sohroederEs- \:tate has been tenderedto you under these articlas. :. !~ I:; Under the raots as stated In Mr. Turner's letter,we ,thinkthe money should be held in the Zetate Fund and not in .'the EaaheatFund.

W4 are sending a aogy of this letterto Mr. John bB. 'Turnor,

County Attorney,Beeville,Texas. We return you herewlth the aopy of the jud&?uent of the ,~probete

oourt Ln the Sofiroeder 'Estete. Yours very truly ATTORMY CEK.QGL OF T!WAS

Geo. W. Barcus Assistant
* 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. 97-50246

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUIS RAUL TORRES-JAUREQUI,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. P-96-CV-09

- - - - - - - - - -

March 19, 1998

Before WISDOM, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luis Raul Torres-Jaurequi appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Torres-Jaurequi argues

that the district court erred in finding no significant variance

between the indictment and the evidence where the indictment

accused him of importing methamphetamine into the United States

but the evidence shows he never entered into the United States,

but remained in customs territory. He further argues that the
No. 97-50246

-2-

district court erred in finding that trial counsel had been

ineffective for not challenging that variance, for failing to

challenge a variation in the Allen charge, and for failing to

request an independent lab report of the drugs seized in the

offense. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and find

that Torres-Jaurequi has not demonstrated error, much less plain

error pertaining to the indictment for importation of

methamphetamine. See United States v. McPhail, 112 F.3d 197, 199

(5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162

(5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1996 (1995);

United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626 (5th Cir. 1992). As

Torres-Jaurequi’s argument concerning the language of the

indictment is without merit, he has plainly failed to demonstrate

that his defense was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to assert

any such error at trial. See Lowery v. Estelle, 696 F.2d 333,

343 (5th Cir. 1983).

Torres-Jaurequi also argues that his attorney was

ineffective for failing to adequately challenge the modified

Allen charge delivered by the court at trial. See Allen v.

United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501-02 (1996). We examined that

issue on direct appeal and found no error. United States v.

Torres-Jaurequi, No. 94-50233 at 5 n.5 (5th Cir. Aug. 3,

1995)(unpublished). As there was no error with regard to the

Allen charge, Torres-Jaurequi’s counsel could hardly have been

deficient for failing to object to it. See Lowery, 696 F.2d at
No. 97-50246

-3-

343. Similarly, as the Government’s laboratory report showed the

substance from Torres-Jaurequi’s car tested positive for

approximately 22,000 grams of D-methamphetamine of 86% purity, a

demand by counsel for an independent lab report would have proved

futile, and there was no plain error in counsel’s not requesting

a second report. See McPhail, 112 F.3d at 199; Lowery, 696 F.2d

at 343. 

AFFIRMED.
18917

#### State v. Moore

Affirmed
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 4, 2009 

0128 

Order 

 

February 4, 2009 

137390 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137390 

 COA: 277291 

Wayne CC: 06-100037 

ELIZABETH ANN EDENSTROM, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 5, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating. Justice Hathaway recuses herself and will not 

participate in this case as she was the presiding trial court judge. See MCR 2.003(B).
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85288-85289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26904]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 23-13]


USL AUTO EXPORTING INC., Complainant v. EASY SHIPPING 
CORPORATION, Respondent; Notice of Filing of Complaint and Assignment

Served: December 4, 2023.
    Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal 
Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by USL Auto Exporting Inc. 
(the ``Complainant'') against Easy Shipping Corporation (the 
``Respondent''). Complainant states that the Commission has subject 
matter jurisdiction over the complaint and personal jurisdiction over 
the Respondent pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended, 46 
U.S.C. 40101 et seq.
    Complainant is a North Carolina limited liability company with a 
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
    Complainant identifies Respondent as a corporation existing under 
the laws of the state of Illinois with a principal place of business in 
Calumet Park, Illinois.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 44102(c) 
regarding a failure to establish, observe, and enforce just and 
reasonable practices relating to receiving, handling, storing, and 
delivering property. Complainant alleges these violations arose from a 
misdeclaration in the shipping instructions; a failure to file a 
declaration for a returned container; and a failure to pay assessed 
fees.
    An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 
25 days after the date of service.
    The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's 
electronic Reading Room at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/23-13/. This proceeding has been assigned to the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges. The initial decision of the presiding judge 
shall be issued by December 4, 2024, and the final decision of the

[[Page 85289]]

Commission shall be issued by June 18, 2025.

Alanna Beck,
Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer, Federal Maritime 
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-26904 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
Docket Num ber FAA - 2013 - 0687



### Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?