alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Luis Fernando Perez-Rincon

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 1:20-CR-58-LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate 

Judge for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On March 5, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. The 

undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments 

under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood 

those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United 

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before 

the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible 

penalties;

3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his

constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and 

effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant waived prosecution by indictment;

5. The defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily;

6. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

7. There is a factual basis for this plea. 

RECOMMENDATION

The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant’s guilty 

plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt 

against him.

WARNING

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on March 5, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 the Treasury

###### Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

# AGENCY:

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee to the National Center for State and Local Law Enforcement Training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will meet on October 25, 2000. The agenda for this meeting includes remarks by the Committee Co-Chairs, Karen Wehner, Deputy Assistant Secretary (LE), Department of the Treasury, and Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice; progress reports on initiatives and training programs; and presentations on collaborative programs presented by the National Center.

# ADDRESSES:

FLTEC Artesia Facility, 1300 W. Richey Avenue, Artesia, New Mexico.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce P. Brown, Director, National Center for State and Local Law Enforcement Training, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Glynco, GA 31524, 912-267-2322.

Authority:The Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (41 CFR Part 101-6.1015(b)).

Dated: September 26, 2000.

Denise Franklin,

Acting Director, National Center for State and Local Law Enforcement Training.

[FR Doc. 00-25329  Filed 10-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-32-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

v.

GREGORY JAMES,

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 1:20-CR-00081-LY

Order Granting Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release

Before the Court is Defendant Gregory James’s Motion for Modification of Conditions of 

Release, filed on December 10, 2020 (Dkt. 42). The District Court referred the Motion to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution on December 14, 2020 (Dkt. 44). A telephone hearing 

on the Motion was held by the undersigned Magistrate Judge on December 15, 2020. Defendant, 

his counsel, counsel for the government, and Defendant’s Supervising Pretrial Services Officer all 

were present during the hearing.

Defendant has been on release on conditions since September 14, 2020. See Dkt. 37. Docket 

call in his case is set for January 22, 2021, and trial for February 8, 2021. Dkt. 43. Defendant now 

seeks to be removed from the Home Incarceration Program and instead placed on the Home 

Detention Program so that he may work. Dkt. 42 at 1.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Paragraph 7(p) of the

Order Setting Conditions of Release (Dkt. 37) is AMENDED so that Defendant is removed from

Home Incarceration and instead is subject to Home Detention. Defendant is restricted to his 

residence at all times except for employment, including interviewing for jobs and working; 

education; religious services; medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment, for Defendant 

or his wife; attorney visits; court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other activities 

approved in advance by the pretrial services office or supervising officer.

Case 1:20-cr-00081-LY Document 47 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Paragraph 7(q) of Defendant’s Additional Conditions of 

Release (Dkt. 37) shall be AMENDED to remove Defendant’s location monitoring condition on

January 15, 2021, if Defendant’s Supervising Pretrial Services Officer determines that Defendant 

has remained in compliance with all of his conditions of release as of that date.

SIGNED on December 15, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00081-LY Document 47 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. 1437-98

GREGORY CHARLES WICKWARE, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS COUNTY

PerCuriam.

OPINION

On appeal from his conviction for possession with intent to deliver more than 400

grams of cocaine, the appellant presented apoint of error that the police officers' entry into

his residence violated the Fourth Amendment because they did not knock and announce their

entry. See generally Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).
Wickware - 2

The Court of Appeals placed the burden on the appellant to show that the police

conduct in knocking down his door as they shouted, "Police," was unreasonable. Wickware

v. State, No. 05-95-01767-CR, slip op. at 7 (Tex. App. — Dallas June 17, 1998) (not

designatedfor publication). The court held that the appellant had not satisfiedhis burden

since an officer gave two reasons for this method of entry: to protect the officers and to

preventthe drugs from beinghidden or flushed down the toilet. Id. at 8.

In making theseholdings, the court did not take account ofthe more recent decision

ofthe Supreme Court in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). The Richards Court

disapproved aper se exception to the "knock and announce" factor ofthe Fourth Amendment

for all drug searches. The Court said:

[I]n each case, it is the duty of a court confronted with the question to

determine whether the facts and circumstances ofthe particular entry justified

dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement.

In order to justify a "no-knock" entry, the police must have a reasonable

suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular

circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the

effective investigation ofthe crime by, for example, allowing the destruction

of evidence. This standard — as opposed to a probable cause requirement —

strikes the appropriate balance between the legitimate law enforcement

concerns at issue in the execution of search warrants and the individual

privacy interests affected by no-knock entries. Cf. Marylandv. Buie, 494 U.S.

325, 337 (1990) (allowing a protective sweep of a house during an arrest

where the officers have "a reasonable beliefbased on specific and articulable

facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those

on the arrest scene"); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (requiring a

reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger to justify a pat-down search).

This showing is not high, but the police should be required to make it

whenever the reasonableness of a no-knock entry is challenged.

Id, at 394-95 (emphases added).

•*
Wickware - 3

The appellant's petition for discretionary review is granted, the judgment of the Court

of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further

consideration ofthis point of error.

En banc.

Delivered January 13, 1999.

Do not publish.
|                                                                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                              
|Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                              
|Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
RE: Request	for	Exemption

Jacob	Knudsen 1202	N	Jackson	Street Gilbert,	AZ	85233 Mobile:	(480)	205

- 3246

E

- Mail:	imjacobk@gmail.com

To	Whom	It	May	Concern:

This	petition	is	being	submitted	for	exemption	under	Section	333; FAA Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012,	Public	Law	112-95	FEB.	14,	2012,	Section

333.

An	exemption	is	requested in	order	to	operate a UAV/UAS,	DJI	Inspire	1	Quadcopter

Aircraft ,	to	permit	the	use	of	providing services	for	profit	which	will	include	aeri al photography	and	aerial	cinematography	for	real	estate,	residential	and	commercial construction	firms,	aerial	mapping,	and	special	events	to	include	but	not	limited	to weddings,	private	or	public	parties/events,	business	advertising,	promotional

events, geological	surveying,	and	environmental	studies.

The	demand	is	in	place	for	these	services	in	my	local	market	and	my	services	will benefit	many	local	businesses.	Traditional	methods	of	aerial	photography	and videography,	typically	via	airplane,	are	not	a viable	option	for	many	small businesses	due	to	the	high	costs.	By	utilizing	my	services	via	UAV/UAS,	better results	will	be	achieved	while	being	more	cost	effective	and	safer	to	the

environment	due	to	no	fuel and	emitted	gasses	from	planes.

Prior	to	each flight/operation	of	the	UAV/ UAS,	I	will	conduct	a	pre-flight	safety

i nspection.	Any	and	all	repairs	will	be	performed	by	manufacturer	authorized	repair facilities/providers.	Flights	will	not	take	place	over	densely	populated	areas	or private	property	with out	the	owners	permission.	The	UAV/UAS	will	only	be operated	within	visual	line	of	sight	and	will	not	be	flown	within	5	miles	of	an	airport or	above	400	feet	from	ground	level.	The	FAA	can	be	confident	that	operations	of this	UAV/UAS	will	achieve	optimum	l evels	of	safety	while	benefiting	local

businesses	in	need	of	these	services.

The	specific	sections	of	14	C.F.R	from	which	I	am	seeking	exemption	are	as	follows:
14	C.F.R.	Part	21; 14	C.F.R.	45.23(b); 14	C.F.R.	61.101(e)(4),	&	(5);	14	C.F.R.	61.113(a)	&	( b); 14	C.F.R.	61.133	(a); 14	C.F.R.	61.23(a)	&	(c); 14	C.F.R	91.7(a) 14	C.F.R.	91.9(b)(2);	14C.F.R.	91.109(a);
14	C.F.R.	91.119;14	C.F.R.	91.121; 14	C.F.R.	91.151(a); 14	C.F.R.	91.203(a)	&	(b);	14	C.F.R.	91.405(a); 14	C.F.R.	91.407(a)(1);	14	C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};	14	C.F.R.	91.417(a)	&	(b).

Please	find	the DJI	Inspire	1 user manual ,	maintenance	manual,	safety	guidelines, and	battery	safety	guidelines	are attached	for	your	reference

.

I	truly	thank	you	for	your	consideration.

Sincerely, Jacob	Knudsen
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-295-CV

HOWARD KIRK, FAMILY OF GIBBS	APPELLANT

	V.

WELDON LUCAS	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant is attempting to appeal the trial court’s August 19, 2004 order declaring him a vexatious litigant and requiring that he post security to ensure payment of court costs or attorney’s fees.  On October 4, 2004, we notified Appellant, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3, that this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it appears that the order is not appealable.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05) (listing types of interlocutory orders that are appealable).  We stated that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

	We have received no response from Appellant.  Because the complained- of order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

							PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED:  November 12, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 189 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24904]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Records and Reports for Private Industry Employers

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Notice of extension of deadline for filing report.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing the 2000 
Employer Information Report (EEO-1) required by 29 CFR 1602.7 is 
extended from September 30, 2000 to October 30, 2000. The three month 
reference period used to report employment figures remains the same. 
Data must be reported for any payroll period in July through September 
of the year 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joachim Neckere, Director, Program 
Research and Surveys Division at (202) 663-4958 (voice) or (202) 663-
7063 (TDD).

    Dated: September 22, 2000.

    For the Commission.
Ida L. Castro,
Chairwoman.
[FR Doc. 00-24904 Filed 9-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-66,910-02 AND WR-66,910-03

EX PARTE ANDRE JACKSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. D-1-DC-16-203428-A AND D-1-DC-16-301040-A

IN THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery (the -02) and robbery (the -03), and the punishment range in each case was enhanced due

to a prior conviction. 

The applications were remanded to the trial court. Counsel provided an affidavit, and the trial

court entered findings indicating that the punishment enhancement in each case was improper. This

Court requires additional fact finding, and the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact.

Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), 
2

The trial court shall make findings whether there were any other prior convictions that could

have been properly used for the punishment enhancement. Ex Parte Parrott, 396 S.W.3d 531 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013). The trial court shall make findings resolving whether Applicant would have

rejected the plea offers had he known the proper ranges of punishment. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S.

52 (1985).

To resolve these fact issues, the trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). In the appropriate case, the trial court may rely on its personal recollection. 

Id. If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If

Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must

be requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: May 15, 2019

Do not publish
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Texas State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Texas State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Adjustments (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | -2     | 48     |        |        |        | -36    | -23    | -28    | 22    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | -109   | 102    | -63    | -3     | -41    | 85     | -14    | 22     | 22     | 34    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 26     | -2     | 55     | 4      | 18     | 13     | -25    | 17     | -29   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 11     | -25    | 16     | -13    | -3     | 1      | 79     | 5      | -6     | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -3     | -20    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023