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. 12-50426 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee
v. KIOR DEJAY GOODLEY, Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa

USDC No. 7:11-CR-318-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kior D ejay Goodley ap p eals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cr a c k c o c a i n e . He c o ntends that there is an insufficient factual basis t o support his guilty p l ea b e c a u s e he j oined the conspiracy when he was a ju v e n i l e and the factual basis does not sufficiently establish a specific affirmative act that ratified his participat i o n i n the conspiracy after h e reached the age o f majority. See United S tates v. Peters , 283 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 October 9, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould 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: 12-50426 Document: 00512401962 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013No. 12-50426

F.3d 300, 309 ( 5th Cir. 2002) (stating that “ [a] juvenile ‘ratifies’ his involvement in a conspiracy by continuing to participate in an ongoing conspiracy after his 18th birthday”). Because Goodley did not object t o the sufficiency of the factual basis underlying h is p lea in the district court, review i s f or plain error o nly. United States v. Palmer , 456 F.3d 484, 489 (5th Cir. 2006). T o establish plain e rror, an appellant must show a f orfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 129 S

. C t. 1 423, 1429 (2009). If the appellant makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, o r public reputat i o n of judicial proceedings. Id. Although the record s u pports Goodley’s assertions that he jo i ned the conspiracy w hen he was a juvenile, he w as not a juveni l e a t the time he was indicted and the indictment to which he p leaded guilty charged him only for his participation in the conspiracy as an a dult. Goodley c ites no authority, and we have f ound none, requiring that the factual basis for a guilty plea establish adult ratification of participation i n a conspiracy the d e fe n dant joined as a juvenile,

w h e r e th e defendant is indicted as an adult and the indictment charges participation i n the conspiracy only a s an adult. Accordingly, he has failed to establish a clear or obvious error. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50426 Document: 00512401962 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Michael J. Post, President, Treasurer andChief Executive Officer of Gasel Transportation Lines Inc. (the “Registrant”),do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

1.           TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended March31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May 19, 2003 | By:                                                 | /s/ Michael J. Post |   |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                | Michael J. Post                                     |
|                | President, Treasurer &  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3366 

AN ACT 

To provide for the release of the property interests retained 

by the United States in certain land conveyed in 1954 

by the United States, acting through the Director of 

the Bureau of Land Management, to the State of Oregon 

for the establishment of the Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center of Oregon State University 

in Hermiston, Oregon. 
2 

•HR 3366 EH

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 ‘‘Hermiston Rever5 sionary Lands Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map en9 titled ‘‘Hermiston Agricultural Research and Exten10 sion Center’’ and dated April 7, 2014. 

11 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

12 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di13 rector of the Bureau of Land Management. 

14 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

15 of Oregon (acting through the Oregon State Board 

16 of Higher Education on behalf of Oregon State Uni17 versity). 

18 SEC. 3. RELEASE OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN BUREAU OF 

19 LAND MANAGEMENT LAND CONVEYED TO 

20 THE STATE OF OREGON FOR ESTABLISH21 MENT OF HERMISTON AGRICULTURAL RE22 SEARCH AND EXTENSION CENTER. 

23 (a) RELEASE OF RETAINED INTERESTS.—Any res24 ervation or reversionary interest retained by the United 

25 States to the approximately 290 acres in Hermiston, Or-
3 

•HR 3366 EH

1 egon, depicted as ‘‘Reversionary Interest Area’’ on the 

2 Map, is hereby released without consideration. 

3 (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary shall 

4 execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, 

5 amended deed, or other appropriate instrument reflecting 

6 the release of retained interests under subsection (a). 

7 (c) CONVEYANCE OF ORPHAN PARCEL.—Notwith8 standing the land use planning requirements of sections 

9 202 and 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

10 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), not later than 180 

11 days after the date on which the Secretary receives a re12 quest from the State, the Secretary shall convey to the 

13 State, without consideration, all right, title, and interest 

14 of the United States to and in the approximately 6 acres 

15 identified on the Map as ‘‘Bureau of Land Management 

16 Administered Land’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3366 

AN ACT 

To provide for the release of the property interests 

University in Hermiston, Oregon. search and Extension Center of Oregon State tablishment of the Hermiston Agricultural ReManagement, to the State of Oregon for the esthrough the Director of the Bureau of Land conveyed in 1954 by the United States, acting retained by the United States in certain land
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00011-CV

Teddy J. Staub, Orlena Mehrabian, Hossain Mehrabian, Luciano Rivera, 

and Mary Jo Greenough, Appellants

v.

The City of Round Rock, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 09-604-C368, HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Mary Jo Greenough hasfiled a motion to dismiss her claims on appeal. We

grant the motion and dismiss Mary Jo Greenough from the appeal. The appeal will continue under

the style Teddy J. Staub, Orlena Mehrabian, Hossain Mehrabian, and Luciano Rivera, Appellants

v. The City of Round Rock, Appellee.

It is ordered May 23, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3635 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-037-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Records Check 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 922 $156,740.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $156,740

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

0.0 $ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,280
<SECURITIES>                                    80,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     87,933
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               343,097
<PP&E>                                         371,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,006,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,842,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       119,706
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,955,989)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,006,414
<SALES>                                      4,079,086
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,079,086
<CGS>                                          487,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,690,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (715,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (715,277)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (715,277)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
#### BECK v. STATE.

No. 24702.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 15, 1950.

*823None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for murder with malice aforethought; the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the nine month period ended September 30,
1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000936105
<NAME> ROCHESTER TELEPHONE CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           8,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,838
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,206
<PP&E>                                         866,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                 527,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 447,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,411
<BONDS>                                         40,000
<COMMON>                                       267,496
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   447,801
<SALES>                                        235,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,159
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (739)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,348
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,019
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (60,441)
<CHANGES>                                      (1,020)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (31,660.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (31,660.62)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
   In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Hyperdynamics Corporation
(Hyperdynamics), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Sarah Berel-Harrop,
Chief Financial Officer of Hyperdynamics, does hereby certify, pursuant to 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to her
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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May
11, 2009
 
 By: /s/ Sarah
Berel-Harrop
 Sarah Berel-Harrop
 Chief Financial Officer
 Principal Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,510
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,046)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,504
<PP&E>                                          51,282
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,956)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,152
<BONDS>                                         23,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                     126,934
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,500
<SALES>                                          3,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,558
<CGS>                                            2,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (174)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   653
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,989
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,963
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,963
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66


</TABLE>
#### SANDERS v. STATE.

No. 22485.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1943.

*478Jno. B. McNamara, of Waco, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of burglary, appellant was assessed two years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 on Form 10-QSB of StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark W.
Blodgett, President and Chief Executive 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/ Mark W. Blodgett                 
|Mark W. Blodgett                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 15, 2007
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*DEREK MAIA

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 677 (AC 16931), is denied.

*919
      *Pamelas. Nagy,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Christopher T. Godialis,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 2, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3383 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3383

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2013

   Ms. Esty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with a 
  serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the 
                   family caregiver services program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Caregivers Expansion and Improvement 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO ALL VETERANS WITH A SERIOUS SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITY OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY 
              CAREGIVER PROGRAM.

    Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``on or after September 11, 2001''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3426 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add physical therapists 

to the list of providers allowed to utilize locum tenens arrangements 

under Medicare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico (for himself and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to add 

physical therapists to the list of providers allowed to 

utilize locum tenens arrangements under Medicare. 

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 ‘‘Prevent Interruptions 

5 in Physical Therapy Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3426 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING PHYSICAL THERAPISTS TO UTILIZE 

2 LOCUM TENENS ARRANGEMENTS UNDER 

3 MEDICARE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

5 1842(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1395u(b)(6)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(H)’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘, and (I) in the case of outpatient phys10 ical therapy services furnished by physical thera11 pists, subparagraph (D) of this sentence shall apply 

12 to such services and therapists in the same manner 

13 as such subparagraph applies to physicians’ services 

14 furnished by physicians’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

16 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished after the 

17 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS