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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 07-40494 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORGE LUIS GUTIERREZ-QUINTANILLA Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-121-ALL Before SMITH, STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Luis Gutierrez-Quintanilla (Gutierrez) appeals his sentence on remand following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court determined that Gutierrez’s second state law conviction for possession ofmarijuana qualified as an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 5, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-40494

2 Gutierrez contends that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), and because the Government did not satisfy the procedural requirements of21 U.S.C. § 851, his second state lawconviction does not qualify for an aggravated felony enhancement
. We recently rejected the same arguments in United Statesv. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 334-36 (5th Cir. 2008).Gutierrez also argues that district court’s ruling is contrary to the legislative intent of Congress and the Sentencing Commission, but this argument is also unavailing in light of Cepeda-Rios
. See id. at 335 (discussing Congressional intent in adopting relevant statutory provisions); § 2L1.2, comment. (n.3(A)) (adopting the definition of “aggravated felony” contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) for purposes of § 2L1.2). AFFIRMED.
#### GREEN v. STATE.

No. 22263.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1943.

Mel Janes, of Lubbock, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and fined the sum of $200.

There are neither bills of exceptions nor statement of facts in the record. The proceedings appear to be in regular form, and we find nothing presented to us for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

The record reveals that on March 10, 1942, appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to a charge of possessing for the purpose of sale “6 pint bottles of wine” in Scurry County, properly alleged -to have been dry area. The trial term of court adjourned on April 30, 1942. No motion for new trial was filed. On May 26, 1942 a request for a 30 day extension within which to file statement of facts and bills of exception was presented by R. W. Webb, ■and the trial court made an order granting a 30 day extension from and after .said date of May 26. No statement of facts or bills of exception was ever filed.

*184Appellant files his affidavit stating that he secured'the services of Mr. Webb to procure the order of extension at the request of Mr. Jones who was appellant’s attorney, and that Mr. Webb had no further connection with the case than to get the extension order. Appellant further states in his affidavit that on June 28 he received a wire from his attorney as follows:

“Necessary for me to go to San Antonio immediately relative *my*status in Army. Advise you ask court for postponement and employ another attorney. I am out of practice for the duration.”

It will be observed that the date of this wire was two days after the expiration of the thirty-day *extension*secured by Mr. Webb, and three months and eighteen days after date of the judgment of conviction upon the plea of guilty. Appellant himself may not have been guilty of negligence in preparing the record, but the bare statement of the situation shows negligence and delay of his attorney for which there can be no legitimate excuse and no ground for further indulgence by this court.

We might add that where a plea of guilty is entered in a misdemeanor case the plea admits defendant’s responsibility, all the material allegations of the indictment or information, the existence of the statutory elements of the crime charged, all the incriminating facts necessary to the conclusion of his guilt, and facts will not ordinarily be inquired into unless it is claimed that evidence heard on the plea demonstrated the defendant’s innocence. There is no semblance of such a claim here, and this may account in some measure for the absence from the record of a statement of facts and bills of exception. See 12 Tex.Jur., § 300, and cases cited.

The attorneys now representing appellant are in no way responsible for the condition of the record.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Louis Clifford Schroeder, Appellant.

Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, First Department,

February 11, 1958.

*467
      *James A. Roe, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (Charles W. Manning*and *Harry Aid*of counsel), for respondent.

Joseph J. Koziira, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction by a City Magistrate for speeding on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive.

The burden of proof is on the People to establish every essential fact to convict a defendant, including, in this case, the expert qualifications of the arresting police officer, who offered testimony as to his reading of the speedometer, of the police officer who it is claimed tested the speedometer, and of the police officer who it is alleged witnessed the claimed test. *(People*v. *Tanner,*6 Misc 2d 1007.) The minutes of the trial before the Magistrate fail to show the previous instruction and training of each of such officers. In addition, such minutes do not show automobile driving experience of the arresting officer or his experience in testing speeds and checking the same against speedometers. This officer, therefore, did not meet such expert qualifications so as to permit him to testify to any alleged speed from a reading of the speedometer made by him. There is also no proof of the driving experience of the other officers and their experience in testing speedometers, or in testing speeds and checking the same against speedometers to support the reception of testimony by the observer officer as to the claimed speedometer test. *(People*v. *Matthews,*4 Misc. 2d 278.)

In addition, the arresting officer also testified that he had not recently checked the speedometer nor had he checked the pressure in the tires on that day, and the observer police officer, too, testified that the pressure in the tires had not been checked when the speedopietey was claimed to have been tested.

*468Furthermore, the observer police officer testified that he did not recall (when he testified only five days after the alleged test is claimed to have been made) the particular test, but that *‘ ‘*a record ’ ’ which he apparently had with him when testifying *“*says this car was tested and I am reading from that There is no proof that such purported record was made by this officer, and not having been introduced in evidence, it is not properly before the Magistrate.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed and set aside and the fine remitted; any notation recorded on his operator’s license is to be cancelled and obliterated.

Kozicke, P. J. and Molloy, J., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THIS ACTION PENDING 

DECISION ON APPLE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 

This Court, having considered Defendant Samsung’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Action 

Pending Decision on Apple’s Motion to Transfer Venue in Case No. 6:20-cv-00505, hereby 

GRANTS the Motion to Stay and ORDERS the following: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is hereby stayed pending a decision on 

Apple’s Motion to Transfer Venue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

ENTERED this ____ day of December 2020. 

THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 36-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN 

SUPPORT TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY

On this date came on to be considered Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum in 

Support to Compel Defendants’ Discovery [Doc. 78] (the “Motion”). Upon due consideration of 

the Motion and Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and 

Memorandum in Support to Compel Defendants’ Discovery [Doc. ___ ], the Court finds that the 

Motion should be DENIED in its entirety. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Memorandum in 

Support to Compel Defendants’ Discovery is DENIED in all respects. 

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ __________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 81-1 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 1
Warbelows Air Ventures 

Re; Essential Air Service for Manley Hot 

To whom it may concern, 

July 11, 

Alaska 

c;;J 

.....J 

! am writing to !end full support for Warb!?!ows.A_ir Ventures to continue to prqvi_de essential air service 

to. the village of Manley Hot Springs; Alaska 99'756. They have been providing this important mode of 

transportation to our community for many years and I they should r·nn,nn• 

tf there should be any questions or need for further information please feel to contact me. 

- > 

-
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1028

CEDRICK EURON DRAPER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 00567

- HEH )

Submitted : May 13, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Cedrick Euron Draper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Cedrick Euron Draper appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and di smiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Draper v. Virginia , No.
3:18

- cv
- 00567

- HEH (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2018) . We deny the motion for mediation and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
pre sented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
Date: fn_L).A,~tJ(_a:J ) Ay;;~ ;;_ ()_~ I 0: ooth01 

Meeting: ~e_ ~~ ktL.aA-1!-<---- · 

Rule(s) Discussed: /Y) f.:~v' 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone Number 

D I' LV\ )-/ ,)"J~){I,j ( , c.. ,,..,("c...,_ ({v~ 2.;;3- 2-f b -77 ~?_ 

DAt/-_,f /)L_./'nd-1 ~ --Jk.,R ""~ o/ -:d: ..... ~. Cjj~ · ~ :1<'-- 7/..«5 

, ] .e~ Sic~ Ecr:d; ~h S/e1rt<- {_leA b 2~) 2- f>Lf~ · lfS cyg 

J<,m GiM 8t v'{trrt il1 /111, ;r;tLL &a 2 ~ 5'1 IP -oS'l1 

.J I K Raux. 0\J ~ """'-- lJ",kJ ~wQLi.~ ~ffi -~bb - '!::£ I ~ \ .) 

m/k'~ /n/i-l.~·c_ /.; ttr.li7cd ~53() /.4'7.1/ a-~/ 7- 97'9-?S~o 

~~\<lo .\b JJ.tr/ :8\)-t= ?c 2---S/2-~1os-

'RoS fV\C.cJ(o rL oL.-~"--b r<R./\. A~lc~ -uv-c fob ~PtO~ 

I3~V\ ~'(If~ ~ k( \. 

'h b~t>C~ G\\..0.\ uwu~ .r ~·>~~•""- Glo· fo5?. w'"0 ·1-

~~ ~~ NfLDC 'JPt SI'S ~2...5{p (y ttdLGvNN~r FPA- yif)_ ~ ~ ) ,- ~00 (::, ~
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 Justice

###### National Institute of Corrections

*Time and Date:*                     8:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 13, 2000 & 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon on Tuesday, November 14, 2000.                

*Place:*                     Holiday Inn Holidome & Conference Center, 5400 Holiday Drive, Frederick, Maryland 21703.                

*Status:*                     Open.                

*Matters to be Considered:*                     Tours/Presentations Related to the Maryland Community Criminal Justice Treatment Program in Frederick County; Updates on Mental Health Program Options and Interstate Compact Activities; Results of Advisory Board Hearings; and Reports by Program Divisions.                

# Contact Person for More Information:

Larry Solomon, Deputy Director, 202-307-3108, ext. 155.

Larry Solomon,

Deputy Director.

[FR Doc. 00-26757 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-36-M
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 The Stephan Co. (the "Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Spindler, 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, to my knowledge:



|(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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert C. Spindler 
|Robert C. Spindler     
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 13, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 61333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26596]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2446]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceeding

October 11, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and 
published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this 
document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's 
copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these 
petitions must be filed by November 1, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of 
the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition 
must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have 
expired.
    Subject: Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability (CC Docket No. 98-147); and 
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26596 Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Mark W. Blodgett, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of StockerYale, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 16, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark W. Blodgett                 
|Mark W. Blodgett                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

of

Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John G. Drosdick, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Sunoco, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sunoco, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 1, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ John G. Drosdick                           
|                       |  |  |  | John G. Drosdick                               
|                       |  |  |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62749-62750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26840]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-958-1430-ET; HAG01-0010; OR-52315]


Proposed Withdrawal Public Meeting Announcement; Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
filed an application to withdraw approximately 9,533 acres of National 
Forest System lands to protect recreational, scenic, cultural and 
traditional use values in addition to threatened, endangered, and 
sensitive flora and fauna natural resource values. This notice 
identifies the time, place, and location of two public open houses 
whereby the public is invited to be involved in and comment on the 
Forest Service's proposed action.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 4, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Forest Supervisor, 
Rogue River National Forest, 333 W. 8th Street, Medford, Oregon 97501.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service filed an application to withdraw National Forest System 
lands from location and entry under the mining laws, subject to valid 
existing rights to protect an area on the Rogue River and Umpqua 
National Forests known as the Huckleberry Patch. The notice of 
segregation became effective on the date the notice of withdrawal was 
originally published in the Federal Register, which was October 5, 
2000, 65 FR page 59464. Notice is hereby given that an open house 
relative to the proposed withdrawal will be held at the following 
locations on the dates shown at the times indicated:

Douglas County Library, 1409 NE Diamond Lake Blvd., Roseburg, Oregon 
from 4 P.M. to 7 P.M., on November 20th, 2000. Questions may be 
directed to Jake O'Dowd, Forest Service 541-957-3354.
Jackson County Courthouse, 10 S. Oakdale, Medford, Oregon from 4 P.M. 
to 7 P.M., on November 21st, 2000. Questions may be directed to Bengt 
Hamner, Forest Service 541-858-2304.


[[Page 62750]]


    Dated: October 12, 2000.
Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,
Chief, Branch of Realty and Records Services.
[FR Doc. 00-26840 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P