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

No. 16

- 40005 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOEL GOMEZ

- ALCARAZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 628

- 1

Before JONES, WIEN ER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Joel Gomez

- Alcaraz 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). Gomez

- Alcaraz raised several issu es in his pro se notice of appeal

. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gomez

Alcaraz ’s clai ms of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 December 21, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40005 Document: 00513808517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2016No. 16

- 40005

2 consider the clai ms without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as the issues raised by Gomez

- Alcaraz . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 16-40005 Document: 00513808517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2016
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 127

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 22 (legislative Day, APRIL 19), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of

April 1993 as ‘‘National Arbor Day’’.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the President is hereby authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation designating the last Friday of April

5 1993 as ‘‘National Arbor Day’’ and calling upon the peo6 ple of the United States to observe such a day with appro7 priate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives April 21, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
EXHIBIT A-3

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 48-4 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 654
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTzuCT OF TEXAS

DIVISION 80, LLC

Plaintffi

v, No. 3:22-CV-00148

MERRICK GARLAND, in his offrcial

capacity as Attorney General of the United

States, et al.,

Defendants

DECLARATION OFADRIAN Z.DIAZ IN SUPPORT OFAMICUS BRIEF FOR

MAJOR CITIES AND PROSECUTORS AGAINST GUN VIOLENCE

I, Adrian Z.Diaz hereby declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1746,

as follows:

1. I am the Interim Chief of Police for the Seattle Police Department (SPD) and have

been in this position for approximately twenty-three months. I have personal knowledge of the

facts set forth below except for those stated on information and belief. If called as a witness, I

could and would testiff competently to the truth of the matters set forth herein.

2. In my role as Interim Chief, I am responsible for the overall leadership of SPD,

setting policies and priorities for public safety management and crime prevention, and

overseeing SPD's taskforce partnerships with federal law enforcement agencies. As part of my

duties, I am responsible for reporting to the Mayor, City Council, State representatives, and

numerous national professional practice organizations (including Major Cities Chiefs

I 5739sss3.1

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 48-4 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 655
Association, International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Police Executive Research

Forum) SPD data pertaining to all forms of public safety matters.

3. As part of its regular operations, SPD maintains records of firearms collected in

connection with an arrest, execution of a search warrant, or any other related law enforcement

activity. SPD also maintains records of firearms that are surrendered, forfeited, or found.

4. Included in these records are data relating to self-made, unserialized "ghost guns,"

which are defined by SPD as "firearms personally made or modified by an individual that have

no serial number which makes them undetectable by law enforcement."

5. From May 2019, when SPD first began tracking ghost guns, through May 2022,

ghost guns account for 83 of the 3,493 firearms taken into SPD's custody.

6. While ghost guns are a small percentage of all gun seizures, the rate of seizure of

ghost guns is growing at a concerning rate. Specifically,year to date, the percentage of ghost

gun recoveries has more than tripled, proportionally, since 2020.

7. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Dated: July 6,2022

Seattle, Washington

Respectfully Submitted,

Adrian Z.Diaz

a

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 48-4 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 656
# Official Journal C 88/4 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 88 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 594 March 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 88

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 594 March 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 088/1 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 34th complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 088/1

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — second supplement to the 34th complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 238/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 238 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6418 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 238

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6418 June 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2021/C 238/01 | Position (EU) No 25/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion FundAdopted by the Council on 27 May 2021 | 1 |
| 2021/C 238/02 | Statement of the Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 25/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund | 39 |

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2021/C 238/01

Position (EU) No 25/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion FundAdopted by the Council on 27 May 2021

1

2021/C 238/02

Statement of the Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 25/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund

39

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**PC MALL,INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**(ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of PC Mall, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Frank F. Khulusi, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)     the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

(2)     the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

This Certification hasnot been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and ExchangeCommission.

 

November14, 2007

 
| /s/ Frank F. Khulusi    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Frank F. Khulusi        |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Case 4:22-cr-00213-P Document 41 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 62
Case 4:22-cr-00176-P Document 65 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 243
Case 4:22-cr-00176-P Document 65 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 244
United States Court of Appeals

FIFTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

LYLE W. CAYCE

CLERK

TEL. 504-310-7700

600 S. MAESTRI PLACE, 

Suite 115

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

December 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW:

No. 22-11071 c/w 22-11086

 VanDerStok v. Garland

USDC No. 4:22-CV-691

Enclosed is an order entered in this case.

 Sincerely,

LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk

 By: _________________________

Roeshawn Johnson, Deputy Clerk

504-310-7998

Mr. Joseph Christopher Amrhein Jr.

Mr. Nathan Brennan

Mr. Richard Brent Cooper

Ms. Erin M. Erhardt

Mr. John Russell Hardin

Ms. Kathleen R. Hartnett

Mr. Sean Janda

Ms. Karen S. Mitchell

Mr. Arjun Pushkar Ogale

Mr. Brian Daniel Poe

Mr. Daniel M. Riess

Ms. Kaitlyn Schiraldi

Mr. Michael J. Sullivan

Mr. Martin M. Tomlinson

Mr. Cody J. Wisniewski

Ms. Abby Christine Wright

Case: 22-11071 Document: 00516592757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2022

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 147-1 Filed 01/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 2779
#### PRATER v. STATE.

No. 22224.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1942.

Callaway & Callaway, and E. J. Miller, all of Brownwood, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is murder. The penalty assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of fifteen years.

This is the second appeal of this case. The opinion on the former appeal will be found reported in 142 Tex.Cr.R. 626, 155 S.W.2d 934.

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

Appellant has filed a brief in which he argues quite at length that the trial court committed fundamental error in this: That the court, in his charge, failed to define an unlawful homicide and failed to explain what would constitute an unlawful homicide, etc. We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention. The court, in his charge, defined murder as the same is defined by statute. This was sufficient. There is no merit in his contention as to fundamental error appearing in the record.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 5 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 5

   Expressing the sense of the Congress that any Federal agency that 
   utilizes the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test should develop and 
validate alternative ophthalmic testing procedures that do not require 
                    the use of animal test subjects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mr. Jacobs submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of the Congress that any Federal agency that 
   utilizes the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test should develop and 
validate alternative ophthalmic testing procedures that do not require 
                    the use of animal test subjects.

Whereas the Draize rabbit eye irritancy test has long been used by various 
        Federal agencies for predicting human opththalmic response to pesticides 
        and toxic chemicals, household cleaning solvents, some medicinal 
        products, and other hazardous substances;
Whereas the Draize test causes significant pain to the albino rabbit which is 
        used in each irritancy test; and
Whereas the reliability of the Draize test has been called into question: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the Department of Health and 
Human Services, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and any other department, agency, or 
instrumentality of the United States that utilizes the Draize rabbit 
eye irritancy test, should develop and validate alternative ophthalmic 
testing procedures that do not require the use of animal test subjects.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered April 24 , 2020

In The



### Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01393

- CR

CAVIN ONEAL SWINEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Crim ina l District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F 18

- 40339

- H

O RDER

Before the C ourt is appellant ’ s April 23 , 2020 fourth motion for exte nsion of

time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant ’ s brief due

on or befo re M a y 22, 2020.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
(December 13, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cecilio Figueroa, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on June 1, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of four years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Slifka Fabrics, Petitioner, and Schneider Silk Mills, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special and Trial Term, New York County,

March 3, 1958.

*Arnold R. Krakower*and *Isidore A. Seltzer*for petitioner.

*Lester Lazarus*for respondent.

Thomas Dickens, J.

Assent to a provision in a contract embodying a stipulation for arbitration, was the exclusive issue litigated in this trial.

This issue came to pass as the result of a motion made by petitioner to obtain an order staying a prior demand made by respondent for the arbitration of a dispute, which, respondent maintained, had arisen, allegedly, out of the written contract in question.

The formal order heretofore made by the Judge on the disposition of the motion, contains the following recital, circumscribing and clearly defining the issue specified therein to be tried: “ Ordered, that the issue of *whether or not the petitioner by its acts and conduct, assented to the provisions for arbitration*embodied in said contract No. 4873, dated April 11, 1957, a copy of which is annexed to the petition herein, be tried pursuant to Section 1458 of the Civil Practice Act -.” (Italics added.)

The trial thereof had before me has produced one phase of testimony, which, in my opinion, conclusively solves and determines this issue. Such testimony was given by a material witness who testified in behalf of petitioner; but, it does not stand petitioner’s cause in good stead.

It is quoted here verbatim:

> *“*Q. *Did you ever discuss with Mr. Sheppard the arbitration clause?*A. *I don’t think so. I just told him we wouldn’t sign the contract. That is what I did tell him.*

> “ Q. Did you tell him *specifically*why you wouldn’t sign the contract? A. *Yes.*

> *“*Q. What was that? A. I told you, the over print that he added on to the contract. *That stamp that they put on the contract and the ten percent seconds.”*(Italics added.)

It is evident that these two definite reasons for refusing to sign the contract are in the nature of particular objections.

To indicate the fatality of this testimony to petitioner’s cause, I shall, for the sake of being pointed and brief, borrow *50the language used by the court in *Littlejohn*v. *Shaw*(159 N. Y. 188), and apply it without further comment. It reads as follows (p. 191): “ The principle is plain, and needs no argument in support of it, that if a *particular objection*is taken to the performance and the party is *silent*as to all others, they are deemed to be waived.” (Italics added.)

In a varied way, this principle is also succinctly contained in this maxim: ‘ ‘ What is expressed makes what is silent to cease.” (Wharton’s Book of Legal Maxims [Eng. Trans.], Pt. II, No. 170, p. 234.)

In view of the foregoing rule, I must, as a result of the testimony afore-noted, find in the affirmative on the issue, to wit, that petitioner, by its acts and conduct, assented to the provisions for arbitration.

It follows therefrom that respondent is entitled to arbitration.

Submit order.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 159 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.159
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                            Joint Resolution


 
   To designate the month of November in 1993 and 1994 as ``National 
                            Hospice Month''.

Whereas hospice care has been demonstrated to be a humanitarian way for 
  terminally ill patients to approach the end of their lives in comfort 
  with appropriate, competent, and compassionate care in an environment 
  of personal individuality and dignity;
Whereas hospice advocates care for the patient and family by attending 
  to their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs and specifically, 
  the pain and grief they experience;
Whereas hospice care is provided by an interdisciplinary team of 
  physicians, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, psychological and 
  spiritual counselors, and community volunteers trained in the hospice 
  concept of care;
Whereas hospice has become a full partner in the Nation's health care 
  system;
Whereas the enactment of a permanent medicare hospice benefit and an 
  optional medicaid hospice benefit makes it possible for many more 
  Americans to have the opportunity to elect to receive hospice care;
Whereas private insurance carriers and employers have recognized the 
  value of hospice care by the inclusion of hospice benefits in health 
  care coverage packages; and
Whereas there remains a great need to increase public awareness of the 
  benefits of hospice care: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the month of November in 
1993 and 1994 is designated as ``National Hospice Month''. The President 
is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon all government 
agencies, the health care community, appropriate private organizations, 
and people of the United States to observe each of those months with 
appropriate forums, programs and activities designed to encourage 
national recognition of and support for hospice care as a humane 
response to the needs of the terminally ill and as a viable component of 
the health care system in this country.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67655-67656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28877]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00-2425; MM Docket No. 00-54; RM-9835 & RM-9907]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Mount Pleasant and Bogata, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Leo Ashcraft proposed the allotment of Channel 263A at Mount 
Pleasant, Texas, as that community's first local broadcast service. See 
65 FR 17618, April 4, 2000. In response to a counterproposal filed by 
Bogata Broadcasting Company we will allot Channel 263A at Bogata, 
Texas, as a first local service, with no allotment being made at Mount 
Pleasant because no valid continuing expression of interest was filed 
for a channel at Mount Pleasant. The coordinates for Channel 263A at 
Bogata, Texas, are 33-23-50 and 95-11-42. A filing window for Channel 
263A at Bogata will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 
opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES: Effective December 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MM Docket No. 00-54, adopted October 18, 2000, and released 
October 27, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.

[[Page 67656]]

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by adding Bogata, Channel 263A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-28877 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U