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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 00-41492 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
GEORGE ZUNIGA, also known as Jorge Zuniga, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-00-CR-271-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * George Zuniga appeals the sentence he received after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute approximately 590 kilograms of marihuana. He asserts that thedistrict court erred when it imposed a two level role-in-theoffense increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) and denied his request for a safety valve reduction under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 based on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than the more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Zuniga offers noNo. 00-41492 - 2 - legal argument in support of this contention. Thus, he has abandoned any reasonable-doubt argument on appeal by not adequately briefing the issue. See United States v. Lucien , 61 F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir. 1995). Zuniga also argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that his role in the criminal activity warranted an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B.1(c), and he faults the court for failing to apply the “safety valve” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 in computing his sentence. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The district court did not clearly err in enhancing Zuniga’s offense level by the minimum amount provided for in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.
See United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 329-30 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, as a defendant receiving an aggravating role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, Zuniga is ineligible for relief under the safety valve provision. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(4). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 211 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27879]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, NCI Scholars Program: RFA CA-01-007.
    Date: November 14, 2000.
    Time: 6 pm to 8 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Georgetown Holiday Inn, 2101 Wisconsin Ave, NW, 
Washington, DC 20007.
    Contact Person: Mary Bell, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National 
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 8058, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/496-7878.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction, 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-27879 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Parfaguirre 

me4 1-‘sut 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS A/K/A ERNEST 

PHILLIPS, 

No. 67087 

No. 67206 

Appellant, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

if)) I947A cg, .EYID 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are pro se appeals from court orders resolving various 

pretrial motions and a court order denying a petition to resubmit 

appellant's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Clark County, Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge. 

No statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order 

denying such motions or resolving such a petition. See Castillo v. State, 

106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990); Gary v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 78, 

605 P.2d 212 (1980) (no appeal lies from an order denying a pretrial 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Accordingly, we conclude that we 

lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 

Douglas Ch:Hir3y7 

tron VtatillagSfatir4inviasalikaint-95:1MUt OtaratcWcickurenba, to4iswAtin.: tao .2".‘ ue• was. 'XII?
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Earnest Phillips 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e
# GILARIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

Department ofEnvironmental Qual~ty Post Off~ce Box 97 Sacaton,Arlzona 85247 (520)562-2234 Fax (520)562-2245 April 

### 8, 2009

Deborah Jordan Division Director EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne St. Air-1 San Francisco, CA 94 105

Dear Deborah Jordan,

Please find attached the revised Emissions Inventory and the Minor Source Review Demonstration for the Gila River Indian Community's (GRIC) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). GRIC Air Quality Program personnel have been working closely with EPA Region 9 staff to complete the support document packet for the AQMP. The enclosed two documents complete the support document packet for the AQMP and provide EPA with the necessary information to evaluate the AQMP for federal enforceability under the Clean Air Act and the Tribal Authority Rule. The GRIC has previously submitted a Treatment as a State (TAS) application which is currently in the public comment process. GRIC greatly appreciates the support and guidance provided by EPA Region 9 staff and is looking forward to resuming approval of both the TAS application and the AQMP for federal enforceability.

If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at (520) 562-2234.

Executive Director GRIC Department of Environmental Quality
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

The Honorable Keith A. Anderson, Director District Department ofthe Environment 1200 First Street NE, 5th Floor Washington, District ofColumbia 20002
Dear Director Anderson: 

### .JUN 1B 

## 1014

On June 9, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the District ofColumbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the District Department ofthe Environment (DDOE). The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2) ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA) that are necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (N02) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the District ofColumbia. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (NPR).
Ifmembers ofyour staffhave any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Emlyn Velez-Rosa, Office ofAir Program Planning, at (215) 814-2038, or velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov.

# ~4 Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division

cc: Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE Rama S. Tangirala, Branch Chief, Monitoring and Assessment Branch, Air Quality Division, DDOE



# 0 Printedon 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100%post-consumer fiber andprocess chlorine free. CustomerServiceHotline: 1-800-438-2474
**********Exhibit 99.2**

******CERTIFICATION**



**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**



****In connection with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2003 to be
filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G. Bernstein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

|Date: April 11, 2003 | By: | s/ Kenneth G. Bernstein
|-------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                     |     | Kenneth G. Bernstein,  
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer
GBUAPCD

– Rule 200 Page 1 of 1 09/05/74 REGULATION II

–PERMITS

RULE 200. PERMITS REQUIRED Adopted: 09/05/74

A. Authority to Construct . Before any person builds, erects, alters, or replaces any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants o r the use of which may eliminate or reduce or control the issuance of air contaminants, such person shall obtain a written authority to construct from the Air Pollution Control Officer. An authority to construct shall remain in effect until the permit to o perate the equipment for which the application was filed is granted or denied or the application is cancelled.

B. Permit to Operate . Before any person operates or uses any article, machine, equipment or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, a written permit shall be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Officer. No permit to operate or use shall be granted either by the Air Pollution Control Officer, or the Hearing Board for any such article, machine, equipment or contrivance described herein until the information required is presented to the Air Pollution Control Officer and such article, machine, equipment or contrivance is altered, if necessary, and made to conform to the standards set forth in Rule 212 and elsewhere in thes e Rules and Regulations.

C. Review of Permits . The Air Pollution Control Officer may at any time require from an applicant for, or holder of, any authority to construct or permit to operate, such information, analyses, plans or specifications as will disclo se the nature, extent, quantity or degree of air contaminants which are or may be discharged into the atmosphere.

D. Post of Permit to Operate . A person who has been granted under Rule 200 (B) a permit to operate any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance described in Rule 200 (B), shall firmly affix such permit to operate, or an approved facsimile or other approved identification bearing the permit number upon the article, machine, equipment or other contrivance in such a manner as to be clearlyvisible and accessible. In the event that the article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance is so constructed or operated that the permit to operate cannot be so placed, the permit to operate shall be mounted so as to be clearly visible in an accessib le place within 25 feet of the article, machine, equipment or other contrivance, or maintained readily available at all times on the operating premises.

E. Alteration of Permit . A person shall not willfully deface, alter, forge, counterfeit, or falsify any permit issued under these Rules and Regulations.

F. Control Equipment . Nothing in this rule shall be construed to authorize the control officer to require the use of machinery, devices, or equipment of a particular type or design if the required emission st andard may be consistently met by machinery, devices, equipment, product or process change otherwise available.

[Intentionally left blank.]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHIRLEAN FANT RAND,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DONALD J. TRUMP; UNKNOWN PARTIES,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 22

- 16257

D.C. No. 2:21

- cv

- 01220

- DLR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 10, 2023 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Shirlean Fant Rand appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging various claims, including under the Federal Tort

Claims Act (“FTCA”) . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

* This disposition is not appr opriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 1 8 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 16257 de novo. Dugard v. United States , 835 F.3d 915, 918 (9th Cir. 2016) ( dismissal of

FTCA claim); Brown v. Cal. De p ’ t of Corr. , 554 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2009)

( dismissal under absolute immunity)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rand’s claims against President Trump

on the basis of absolute immunity. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731, 74 9

- 5 3

(1982) ( explaining that a president is absolute ly immun e from “ damages liability

predicated on his official acts” )

.

The district court properly dismissed Rand’s FTCA claims because Rand

failed to establish that she could state viable claim s against a private individual

under like circumstances under applicable state law. See Dugard , 835 F.3d at 918

-

91 9 ( the FTCA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity

where the government would be liable under analogous state law); Prescott v.

United States , 973 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[P] laintiff bears the burden of

persuading the co urt that it has subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA ’ s

general waiver of immunity .”); see also Love v United States , 60 F.3d 642, 644

(9th Cir. 1995) ( “The breach of a duty created by federal law is not, by itself,

actionable under the FTCA.” )

.

The d istrict court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rand leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of3 22

- 16257 review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be

futile).

We reject as unsupported by the record Rand’s contentions that she was

entitled to a default judgment against defendants.

AFFIRMED.
#### BRONSON v. STATE.

No. 25810.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area. The punishment was assessed at 120 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for review, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 31.2 Certification I, Andrew S. Prince, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Precision Aerospace Components, Inc. (the Company);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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.As the Companys sole certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.As the Companys sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.  /s/ Andrew S. PrinceAndrew S. PrinceChief Financial Officer Date: May 9, 2008
RECEIVED COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

### t^!\sKA ^^ ^ tw iwt of- ;OURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS ^ / f ^ / ^
_ AUG 19 2015 

### lJU\Kn Ok t^ hV4t^A^IL. AbelAC°Sta'^W Vn ^\f. 

### ^l ^W. U^-^l ^^ \& \sA \ Wc Mtw fc>U OS;'/;

s 

### ki&fc \AA«A e^U W V> wW ^ \&W \^W AW m**- %ik^ & c^^ukw\ Wfeitetb ad^Qidok' tetoiste iWi Wta ^M, ii<^*& vM -^A&A V^ W\GkuA Vu 

### ft. WUU\ k^c,\ aLv\ %ks Uv k^\ Auk
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01
                            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 Atlantic Data Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
W. Howe, 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/ Robert W. Howe
---------------------------
Robert W. Howe
Chief Executive Officer
June 25, 2003
#### LEACH v. STATE.

No. 24759.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1950.

*810Dell Barber, Colorado City, Perry O. Barber, Colorado City, for appellant.

Eldon Mahon, District Attorney, Colorado City, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the offense of statutory rape — that is, carnal knowledge, with or without consent, of a female under the age of eighteen years and not the wife of the accused. The punishment assessed is five years in the penitentiary.

We go direct to a discussion of the question decisive of this appeal.

Prosecutrix, sixteen years of age, testified to facts showing a case of rape by force on the part of appellant. She made an outcry to her mother, whp had her examined by a physician. The physician “took some washings from the vagina and. sent them to the laboratory.” The physician was permitted, over objection of the appellant, to testify that the “laboratory report on their findings showed some male sperm — in the washings from the vagina.”

It will be noted that the doctor testified as to the contents of the laboratory report, which was not in evidence.

The conclusion is expressed that the testimony was hearsay and subject to the objection leveled thereto. Inasmuch as the State made use of this hearsay testimony upon a controverted issue of fact, we cannot agree that its receipt in evidence should be held harmless.

We are unable to see the materiality of the testimony showing that appellant, while not a married man at the time of the alleged offense, had been married at one time, and suggest that in the event of another trial such testimony be not admitted.

The facts are amply sufficient to> warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Other questions presented, especially those relating to the motion for continuance and argument of State’s counsel, will hardly arise upon another trial and are therefore not discussed.

For the receipt in evidence of the hearsay testimony mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

.Opinion approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of HyperDynamics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kent P. Watts, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec.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 operations of the
Company.

Date: May 13, 2005                                  By:  /s/ Kent P. Watts
                                                         -----------------
                                                         Kent P. Watts
                                                         Chief Executive Officer