alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10126 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CODY LADELL BLUE , also known as Trigger,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 142

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Cody Ladell Blue has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Blue h a s filed a motion for appoi ntment of new counsel in response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 11, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10126 Document: 00514792145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2019No. 18

- 10126

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’ s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Blue’s pro se motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Cf. United States v. Wagner , 158 F. 3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. Case: 18-10126 Document: 00514792145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2019
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 232

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, March 24, 1994, it stand adjourned

4 until noon on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, or until noon on

5 the second day after Members are notified to reassemble

6 pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which7 ever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or

8 adjourns at the close of business on Friday, March 25,

9 1994, Saturday, March 26, 1994, Monday, March 28,

10 1994, Tuesday, March 29, 1994, Wednesday, March 30,

11 1994, or Thursday, March 31, 1994, pursuant to a motion
2

HCON 232 EH

1 made by the majority leader or his designee, in accordance

2 with this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until

3 noon on Monday, April 11, 1994, or at such time on that

4 day as may be specified by the majority leader or his des5 ignee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

6 on the second day after Members are notified to reassem7 ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,

8 whichever occurs first.

9 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

10 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

11 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

12 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

13 the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

14 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the House of Representatives March 24,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2860]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration


President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption; Notice of 
Open Meeting

    The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption (PECSENC) 
will meet on February 25, 2000, at the Hewlett-Packard Company, 
Spyglass Room, Building 5, 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, 
94304. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and is scheduled to adjourn 
at 4 p.m. The Subcommittee provides advice on matters pertinent to 
policies regarding commercial encryption products.

Open Session: 9:00 a.m.-4 p.m.

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman
2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public
3. Update on Bureau of Export Administration initiatives
4. Issue briefings
5. Open discussion

    The meeting is open to the public and a limited number of seats 
will be available. Reservations are not required. To the extent time 
permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
PECSENC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to PECSENC members, the PECSENC suggests that 
public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the 
meeting to the address listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, Advisory 
Committees MS: 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, 15th St. & 
Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    For more information, contact Ms. Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.

    Dated: February 3, 2000.
Brian Nilsson,
Acting Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2860 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1612050
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4052271
<ALLOWANCES>                                    152696
<INVENTORY>                                     222319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5805035
<PP&E>                                         1057373
<DEPRECIATION>                                  611690
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8492974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4838987
<BONDS>                                         866698
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       8012395
<OTHER-SE>                                   (5225106)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8492974
<SALES>                                       10196634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              10196634
<CGS>                                         11462089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3574862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                503802
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              503802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1735220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1735220)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1735220)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
©	Copyright	2016,	Drone	Universities,	All	Rights	Reserved.	Revision	16 January	11,	2016

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	w12B140

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	S.E.

Washington,	DC	20590	

Petition	for	Exemption	Under	14	CFR § 11.81.	to	Allow	Commercial

Use	of	Unmanned	Aircraft	Systems

Petitioner:

Michael	Robbins

Vertworx,	LLC

4450	El	Centro	Road	#416

Sacramento,	CA	95834

(310)	866-0318

info@vertworx.com

Prepared	By:	

Sam	Estrin

Drone	Universities,	LLC

4450	El	Centro	Road	#416

Sacramento,	CA	95834

(858)	216-4416 x	102

sam.estrin@gmail.com

To	Whom	It	May	Concern,		

Re:	Section	333	Exemption	No.	13442,	Regulatory Docket No.	FAA-2015-3102	-

Update	to	Exemption	Request	Section	333	of	the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	

Federal	Aviation	Regulations	from	14	C.F.R.	45.23(b);14	CFR	Part	21;14	CFR	61.113	

(a)	&	(b);	91.7	(a);91.9	(b)	(2);91.103(b);	91.109;91.119;	91.121;	

91.151(a);91.203(a)	&	(b);91.405	(a);	91.407(a)	(1);	91.409	(a)	(2);91.417	(a)	&	

(b).

This	is	a	request	to	amend	Section	333	Exemption	No.	13442,	Regulatory Docket No.	

FAA-2015-3102, which	provides	Vertworx,	LLC with	an	exemption	that	allows	for	

limited	commercial	use	of	UAVs.	

In	addition	to	the	UAVs	covered	in	the	original	exemption	request,	we	respectfully	

request	permission	to	fly	the	following	six	(6)	UAVs:

• DJI	Phantom	2	(All	Models)

• DJI	Phantom	3	(All	Models)

• DJI	Inspire	1

• DJI	Inspire	X5

• DJI	S900	(All	Models)

• DJI	S1000	(All	Models)

Please	advise	us	of	any	additional	information	or	changes	that	may	be	required.
©	Copyright	2016,	Drone	Universities,	All	Rights	Reserved.	Revision	16 January	11,	2016

Sincerely,

Michael	Robbins,	

Owner	Vertworx,	LLC

01/11/2016
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JEFF LEACH, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

D/B/A BASECAMP TERLINGUA,

 Appellant, 

v.

KATY SCHWARTZ,

 Appellee.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00073-CV

Appeal from the

394th District Court

of Brewster County, Texas

(TC # CVB 19 347)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until March 5, 2021. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Jodi Cole, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the Appellee’s 

Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 5, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9

th day of February, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31**

 

CAREADVANTAGE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer of CareAdvantage, Inc. certify that: 

 

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

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain 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 thisquarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols 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’sinternal 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which could 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2005
Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 11 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 221Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 11 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 222
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000939730
<NAME>                                         N/A
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         1,922
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,714
<PP&E>                                         2,125
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,960
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,512
<SALES>                                        22,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,778
<CGS>                                          13,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (4,268)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,625)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (1.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (1.38)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY MAURICE BALDWIN, Estate of the foregoing, by and through the Administratrix, Jo Ann Baldwin, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-1104 T. P. RILEY, individually and in his official capacity as an officer of the Fayetteville City Police Department; THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-96-192-5-F) Argued: January 29, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Clifford Leon Lee, II, THE LEE LAW FIRM, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Bobby Grey Deaver, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Carl James Milazzo, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:The estate of Anthony M. Baldwin sued T.P. Riley, a police officer, and his employer, the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the unreasonable use of force in thekilling of Anthony Baldwin. The killing occurred at the end of a highspeed motor vehicle chase, which commenced after Baldwin fired on a police officer following an apparent attempted bank robbery. As one of the pursuing officers, Riley chased Baldwin at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour, during which time Baldwin gravely endangered the lives of other motorists and repeatedly fired his shotgun at Riley. In a final effort to escape, Baldwin pulled his car into a church parking lot and emerged, shotgun in hand, to face Riley. As Riley brought his vehicle to a stop, Baldwin pointed his shotgun at Riley and moved toward Riley's vehicle. When Riley saw Baldwin turn to flee, he exited his vehicle and ordered Baldwin to"freeze." Baldwin refused, and continued his flight toward a nearby residential area. Unable to see both of Baldwin's hands, Riley reasonably believed Baldwin was still carrying his shotgun. Fearing that Baldwin posed an immediate danger to himself and the general public, Riley fired three times, striking Baldwin once in the head, killing him instantly. We hold that the actions of Riley and his employer, the City ofFayetteville, were not unreasonable under the circumstances. The district judge so found, and we agree for the reasons stated in his opinion. See Baldwin v. Riley , No. 5:96-CV-192-F3 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 1996). That opinion is accordingly
AFFIRMED

. 2
OCTOBER TERM, 1747.

#### Eleanor Thornton’s Lessee *against*John Edwards.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Trueman’s Hunting*Quarter, lying in *Saint Mary’s*County.

At the trial of this cause at *Saint Mary’s*Assises in *September,*1747, the plaintiff, by *Henry Darnall send Jeremiah*Chase, his attornies, to prove the issue on his part, tendered in evidence to the Jury an attested copy, certified to have been taken from the original certificate dated the 29th July, 1714, made in virtue of a warrant of resurvey, to resurvey the tract of land in question, which certificate of resurvey was lodged in the land-office. The defendant, by *Philip ,Key*and *William*Cumming, his attornies, objected that the same was not legal evidence. But the Court directed the Jury that the said certificate was legal evidence. To which opinion the defendant excepted.

The Provincial Court gave judgment for the plaintiff.

Lib/ E. J. No. 10. fol. 728.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: § 

§ No. 3:22-mc-00027-B 

WILLIAM REAGAN WYNN § 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSE AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JANE J. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

William Reagan Wynn, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the 

Court allow a 14-day extension of time to respond to the Court’s Notice and Order entered on 

April 21, 2022. Additionally, counsel requests leave to file the response under seal. As grounds 

therefor, counsel states as follows: 

Mr. Wynn has sought and received an extension of time for the reporting requirements set 

forth in the Default Judgment attached to this Court’s Notice and Order. The reporting is now 

due to the State Bar of Texas on or before May 13, 2022. An extension of time in the instant 

matter (to May 19, 2022) will allow Mr. Wynn to confirm to the Court that those State Bar 

requirements have been completed. 

Counsel believes that information likely to be contained in Mr. Wynn’s response to the 

Court’s Notice and Order is appropriate for filing under seal and as such, respectfully requests 

that: 1) the Court permit the response to be filed on or before May 19, 2022; and 2) the Court 

allow the response to be filed under seal. 

Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 12
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Camille M. Knight

Camille M. Knight

Texas Bar No. 24027124

900 Jackson Street, Suite 430

Dallas, Texas 75202

214-871-1133

camille@cknightlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of May, 2022, I filed this Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Response and for Leave to File Under Seal via the Court’s CM/ECF system, 

thereby providing service on attorneys of record.

/s/ Camille M. Knight

Camille M. Knight

Case 3:22-mc-00027-B Document 3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 13
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28784]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences (1204).
    Date and Time: November 30, 2000 through December 2, 2000; 8:30 
a.m. until 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alvin Thaler, Program Director, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 292-4863.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposal submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals concerning the 
Foundations Panel Meeting, as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28784 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Case 4:22-cr-00067-P Document 27 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 41
Case 4:22-cr-00067-P Document 27 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 42
#### KOERNER v. STATE.

No. 24327.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 30, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving, while intoxicated, an automobile upon a public highway in Edwards County, Texas; punishment, a fine of $50.00 and 10 days in jail.

The state has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The term of court at which appellant was convicted began September 6, 1948, and terminated by operation of law on March 6, 1949. Judgment of conviction was entered on October 25, 1948. An appeal bond was executed on the same day and was approved on October 26, 1948, all occurring during the term of court.

Article 830, C.C.P., provides that an appeal in a misdemeanor case may be perfected during the term by entering into a recognizance and that an appeal bond may be resorted to only after adjournment for the term of the court in which the conviction was had.

The Court of Criminal Appeal does not obtain jurisdiction where appeal bond is resorted to before adjournment. See Adams v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 434, 77 S.W.2d 537; Flynn v. State, 128 Tex.Cr.R. 513, 82 S.W.2d 980; Watson v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 190 S.W.2d 830.

The State’s motion is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.