alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50608 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JESSE GARZA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:08-CR-270-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesse Garza w as convicted of one count of failing to register as a sex offender. Now, G arza a p p e a l s the district court’s judgment concerning the fourth revocation o f hi s s u p e rvised release, which resulted in his receiving a sentence of 24 months in prison and a lifetime term of supervised release. First, he argues that his s e n t e n c e i s improper because the district court erroneously relied upon the factors given in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when sentencing him. Next, he contends that he should not have received a lifetime t e rm of supervised U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D J uly24, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50608 Document: 00512319736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2013No. 12-50608

release because, when h e pleaded guilty to the u nderlying offense, h e w as misinformed and told that the maximum possible term of supervised release was three years. As Garza acknowledges, these claims are reviewed for plain error only due to his failure t o raise them in the district court. See United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th C ir. 2009). Under this standard, Garza must show a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). This court has discretion t o correc t a plain

error but will do so only i f it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. See id . This standard has not been met. With respect to Garza’s first claim, o ur reading of the revocation hearing does not support his position that the district court er r e d b y r e lying u pon the factors given i n § 3553(a)(2)(A) to set his s entence. See United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011). Rather, this r e v i e w shows that the district court was primarily concerned with the danger that Garza posed to the public, which i s a permissible factor to consider when imposing sentence following

r e v o c ation. See Miller , 634 F.3d at 8 44; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); § 3553(a)(2)(C)

. Garza has not shown e rror, plain or otherwise, concerning this claim. S imilarly, Garza’s arguments concerning the admonishments he received at the time of his initial p l ea do n o t establi s h t h a t the district court committed error, plain or otherwise, by choosing to impose the lifetime term of s upervised release that is statutorily authorized. See § 3583(e)(2), (k). AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50608 Document: 00512319736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2013
#### Lucy GOFORTH et al., Appellants, v. M. F. KNUCKLES, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 17, 1955.

Floyd Taylor, Pineville, for appellant.

W. R. Knuckles, Pineville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves title to a tract of 30 acres of mountain land, the value of which is not stated. Although the case is not expressly here on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.060, we have treated it as if it were because that is the only basis on which we would have jurisdiction to’ review the record.

Finding no error and approving the judgment, the motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2362
JESSE R. LANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WONDERLYN BELL, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-884-2-8BD) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse R. Lance, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Appellant's attempt to directly appeal an order entered by the South Carolina Supreme Court. We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lance v. Bell , No. CA-95-884-2-8BD (D.S.C. June 6, 1995). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of KBL Healthcare Acquisition Corp. II (the Company) on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operation of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                         
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------
|Date: March 5, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Marlene Krauss, M.D.
|                    |  |     |  | Marlene Krauss, M.D.    
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                    |  |    
|Date: March 5, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael Kaswan      
|                    |  |     |  | Michael Kaswan          
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Operating Officer
2006.txt

Station ID: 72290 Run ID: Start Date: 1/1/2006 - 00:00 End Date: 12/31/2006 - 23:00

Frequency Distribution (Count)

Speed Knots

Wind Direction 1 - 4 4 - 7 7 - 11 11 - 17 17 - 21 >= 22 Total

348.75 - 11.25 330 7 0 0 0 0 337 11.25 - 33.75 161 1 0 0 0 0 162 33.75 - 56.25 102 1 0 0 0 0 103 56.25 - 78.75 158 2 1 0 0 0 161 78.75 - 101.25 438 20 9 2 0 0 469 101.25 - 123.75 536 85 88 15 0 0 724 123.75 - 146.25 393 41 3 1 0 0 438 146.25 - 168.75 152 14 3 2 0 0 171 168.75 - 191.25 101 38 8 3 0 0 150 191.25 - 213.75 93 40 11 5 0 0 149 213.75 - 236.25 104 65 22 1 0 0 192 236.25 - 258.75 187 96 11 3 0 0 297 258.75 - 281.25 574 568 35 4 0 0 1181 281.25 - 303.75 736 1205 75 7 0 0 2023 303.75 - 326.25 931 396 23 0 0 0 1350 326.25 - 348.75 510 44 2 0 0 0 556 Sub-Total: 5506 2623 291 43 0 0 8463 Calms: 286 Missing/Incomplete: 11 Total: 8760

Frequency of Calm Winds: 3.27% Average Wind Speed: 3.23 Knots

Station ID: 72290 Run ID: Start Date: 1/1/2006 - 00:00 End Date: 12/31/2006 - 23:00 Page 12006.txt

Frequency Distribution (Normalized)

Speed Knots

Wind Direction 1 - 4 4 - 7 7 - 11 11 - 17 17 - 21 >= 22 Total

348.75 - 11.25 0.037719 0.000800 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.038519 11.25 - 33.75 0.018402 0.000114 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.018516 33.75 - 56.25 0.011658 0.000114 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.011773 56.25 - 78.75 0.018059 0.000229 0.000114 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.018402 78.75 - 101.25 0.050063 0.002286 0.001029 0.000229 0.000000 0.000000 0.053606 101.25 - 123.75 0.061264 0.009715 0.010058 0.001714 0.000000 0.000000 0.082752 123.75 - 146.25 0.044919 0.004686 0.000343 0.000114 0.000000 0.000000 0.050063 146.25 - 168.75 0.017373 0.001600 0.000343 0.000229 0.000000 0.000000 0.019545 168.75 - 191.25 0.011544 0.004343 0.000914 0.000343 0.000000 0.000000 0.017145 191.25 - 213.75 0.010630 0.004572 0.001257 0.000571 0.000000 0.000000 0.017031 213.75 - 236.25 0.011887 0.007429 0.002515 0.000114 0.000000 0.000000 0.021945 236.25 - 258.75 0.021374 0.010973 0.001257 0.000343 0.000000 0.000000 0.033947 258.75 - 281.25 0.065607 0.064922 0.004000 0.000457 0.000000 0.000000 0.134987 281.25 - 303.75 0.084124 0.137730 0.008572 0.000800 0.000000 0.000000 0.231226 303.75 - 326.25 0.106412 0.045262 0.002629 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.154303 326.25 - 348.75 0.058292 0.005029 0.000229 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.063550 Sub-Total: 0.629329 0.299806 0.033261 0.004915 0.000000 0.000000 0.966096 Calms: 0.032648 Missing/Incomplete: 0.001256 Total: 1.000000

Frequency of Calm Winds: 3.27% Average Wind Speed: 3.23 Knots

Page 2
Erik A. Polta 10 Aug 15

RPA-Solutions LLC 

2300 Miramonte Dr

Sherwood, AR 72120

 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Request Request for Additional Information: RPA Solutions 

(FAA-2015-1272)

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Per the FAAs request for additional information regarding: 

Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should 

include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be 

located in the aircraft manuals.

We have added appendix G (see below): 
APPENDIX G

RPA-Solutions SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS

RPA-Solutions will utilize COTS systems for the majority of its market research due to 

their relatively low cost, wide availability and reasonable reliability provided by OEM 

market research and testing. Both Multi-rotor and fixed wing aircraft will be utilized as 

both have their unique safety challenges and operational advantages and 

disadvantages

Multirotor System (Quadcopter) 

Manufacturer: DJI 

Model: Inspire 1 

Weight (Battery Included) 2935 g 

Hovering Accuracy (GPS Mode) Vertical: 0.5 m/Horizontal: 2.5 m 

Max Speed 22 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) 

Max Flight Altitude 4500 m 

Max Flight Time Approximately 18 minutes 

Diagonal Distance 559 to 581 mm 

Dimensions 438x451x301 mm 

Output Power (With Camera) Static: 9 W /In Motion: 11 W 

Operating Current Station: 750 mA/ Motion: 900 mA 

Pitch: -90° to +30° 

Pan: ±320° 

Manufacturer: DJI 

Model: Phantom 3 (advanced) 

Weight (Including Battery And Propellers) 1280 g 

Diagonal Size (Including Propellers) 590 mm 

Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s 

Max Descent Speed 3 m/s 

Hover Accuracy Vertical: +/- 0.1 m (when Vision Positioning is active) or +/- 0.5 m 

Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) 

Max Altitude Above Sea Level 6000 m 

Operating Temperature 0°C to 40°C 

GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS

Manufacturer: Blade 

Model: 350 QX3 AP Combo 

Prop Diameter: 22.8 in (580mm) 

Main Rotor Blade Length: 8.27 in (210mm) 

Main Motor Type: Brushless Outrunner 

Battery: E-Flite 3000mAh 3S 11.1V 30C LiPo, 12AWG, EC3 
Length: 18.3 in (465mm) 

Height: 7.48 in (190mm) 

Width: 18.3 in (465mm) 

Main Frame Material: Plastic 

Flying Weight: 33.7 oz (955g) 

Approx Flying Duration: 15 minutes

Fixed Wing System 

Manufacturer: Zeta Science 

Model: FX-61 Phantom

Wingspan - 61" (1550mm) 

Length - 27" (683mm) 

All Up Weight - 64oz 

Battery (as built) - 4S, 4000mah, 

Motor (as built) -Cobra 2820/10-1170Kv Brushless Outrunner 

MAX Power - 555watts 

MAX Current - 38amps 

MAX Thrust with CamCarbon prop - 71oz(2023gr) 

MAX Prop speed - 76mph(123kph)

Manufacturer: Ritewing 

Model: Zephyr III

Wingspan - 47" 

All Up Weight - 150oz 

Battery (as built) - 4S, 4000mah, 

Motor (as built) -Cobra 2820/10-1170Kv Brushless Outrunner 

MAX Power - 555watts 

MAX Current - 38amps 

MAX Thrust with CamCarbon prop - 71oz(2023gr) 

MAX Prop speed - 76mph(123kph)
#### Frank WALLACE, Appellant, v. WALTERS & KEENE MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 24, 1955.

V. R. Bentley, Pikeville, for appellant.

O. T. Hinton, W. R. Young, Pikeville, for appellee.

STEWART, Chief Justice.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment awarding appellee $485.35 damages against appellant. Appellee contends the appeal should be dismissed because there was a failure to comply with CR 75.-04, which required appellant to serve with his designation a concise statement of the points on which he- 'relied on the appeal, since he did “not designate for inclusion the complete record and all the proceedings and evidence" in the action”. The contention is. a meritorious one. .

Without _a. statement qf points appellee had no means of knowing what additional parts of the record" should he brought up under a counter-designation to give" á fair and’ complete picture of "the issueS, so that its interests on the appeal could be protected. The purpose of" CR 75.04 is" to meet such a situation. See Ashton v. Town of Deerfield Beach, 5 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 40. Itye find in reading his brief that appellant argues points that need support from the omitted portions of the .record. Appellee, is "faced with questions raised by appellant which cannot be met, it asserts, because the parts of the record necessary to constitute a defense thereto are missing. This indicates the prejudicial effect of appellant’s failure to "comply with" CR 75.04.

: Under CR 73.02(2) we are authorized to, and we hereby, dismiss the appeal in view of appellant’s failure to comply with the Rules in perfecting his appeal. See United States *v.*Gallagher, 9 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 556.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6918

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALPHONSO EUGENE ALSTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge. (CR-93-241, CA-97-528-2)

Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Eugene Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* To the extent that Alston challenges his status as a career

offender, we have previously upheld such status on direct appeal.

See United States v. Alston, No. 94-5448 (4th Cir. June 2, 1995)

(unpublished). Hence, further argument on this issue is foreclosed

under the law of the case doctrine. See United States v. Bell, 5

F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993).

2

PER CURIAM:

Alphonso E. Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.* See Alston v. United States, Nos. CR-93-241; CA-97-

528-2 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued August 11, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00496-CR

———————————

MARTIN LUIS ROCHA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 0842390

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Martin Luis Rocha, is attempting to appeal his May 9, 2001 

conviction for aggravated robbery. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 8, 

2016. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a letter, advising that we have no 

jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal is untimely.
2

In a criminal case, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after sentence 

is imposed or suspended in open court or after the day the trial court enters an 

appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The deadline may be extended to 

ninety days if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See id. at 26.2(a)(2). 

The deadline for filing the notice of appeal may also be extended if, within fifteen 

days after the date the notice of appeal is due, the appellant properly files a motion 

for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 

Here, the judgment of conviction was signed on May 9, 2001. Appellant’s 

April 8, 2016 notice of appeal was filed almost fifteen years after judgment was 

signed. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke an appellate court’s 

jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, we have no jurisdiction over his 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a); 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### Launa THURMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28018.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Bill Pemberton, County ■ Atty.-, Henry E. Pharr, Asst. County Atty., Greenville, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.

The state insists that this appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the trial court was without authority to consider the amended motion for a new trial, after *942the expiration of twenty days from the time it was filed.

Appellant’s amended motion was timely filed June 17. The term of court expired June 30, and a new term began July 1, therefore, the amended motion was pending for disposition at the July Term. Art. 755, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. The overruling of the amended motion at the July Term whether by operation of law at the expiration of the twenty days fixed by the statute or by the order entered August 13 gave appellant the right to give notice of appeal at any time during such term. Hunt v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 269 S.W.2d 385. We need not therefore determine the effect of the court’s failure to act upon the amended motion for new trial within twenty days after its filing. The state’s motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

In view of the disposition hereof a summary of the evidence will be omitted.

The state used three witnesses in presenting its case in chief. Two of said witnesses were inspectors for the Texas Liquor Control Board who testified as to the sale of the whiskey herein charged. By the state’s third witness, a deputy supervisor for the Texas Liquor Control Board, the state introduced testimony on direct examination that the reputation of the two inspectors for truth and veracity was good. Appellant did not attack at any time the reputation of the two prosecuting witnesses, and objected to this testimony on the ground that the witnesses’ reputation had not been attacked and that such testimony bolstered the credibility of said witnesses. This testimony was not admissible, and the objection should have been sustained. Jones v. State, 52 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 106 S.W. 126; Solis v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 230, 174 S.W. 343; Jupe v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 573, 217 S.W. 1041; Tweedle v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 200, 218 S.W.2d 846; Branch’s Ann.P.C. 112, Sec. 182; and 15 A.L.R. 1065, 1068n.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1924 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States that have in 

effect laws or orders with respect to pay to play reform, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2011 

Mr. QUIGLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to protect States 

that have in effect laws or orders with respect to pay 

to play reform, and for other purposes. 

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 may be cited as the ‘‘State Ethics Law Pro5 tection Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAY TO PLAY REFORM. 

7 Section 112 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1924 IH

1 ‘‘(h) PAY TO PLAY REFORM.—A State transpor2 tation department shall not be considered to have violated 

3 a requirement of this section solely because the State in 

4 which that State transportation department is located, or 

5 a local government within that State, has in effect a law 

6 or an order that limits the amount of money an individual 

7 or entity that is doing business with a State or local agen8 cy with respect to a Federal-aid highway project may con9 tribute to a political party, campaign, candidate, or elected 

10 official.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1877 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1877

   To direct the Secretary of Defense to prohibit family members of 
   individuals detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 
                       visiting such individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2011

  Mr. Hunter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Defense to prohibit family members of 
   individuals detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 
                       visiting such individuals.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FAMILY MEMBER VISITATION OF INDIVIDUALS 
              DETAINED AT NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no 
person who is a family member of an individual detained at Guantanamo 
is permitted to visit the individual at United States Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    (b) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined.--In this Act, the 
term ``individual detained at Guantanamo'' means any individual who is 
located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or 
after March 7, 2011, who--
            (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
        the Armed Forces of the United States; and
            (2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the 
        Department of Defense.
                                 <all>
```