alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALAN MOON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

W. J. THOMPSON, in his official

No. 97-6247

capacity as Warden, Federal

Correctional Institution,

Morgantown, West Virginia,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.

William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-158-1)

Submitted: September 29, 1998

Decided: October 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Alan Moon, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United

States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alan Moon appeals the district court's order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. Moon asserts that the Bureau of

Prisons erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under

18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998), based on his prior conviction for a violent offense. According to Moon, his firearm conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998), was

a nonviolent offense and should not have disqualified him from consideration for a reduction. In support, Moon points to 28 C.F.R.

§ 550.58 (1995), which defines the term "nonviolent offense" by reference to the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(3) (1994). The definition in § 924(c)(3) would not include

Moon's firearm offense as it did not involve the use or threat of physical force against another.

However, while Moon's appeal was pending, the Bureau of Prisons

("BOP") adopted a revised § 550.58, which abandons reference to

§ 924(c)(3) and explicitly includes possession of a firearm in its determination of disqualifying offenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (1997).

Accordingly, Moon's case is governed by our recent decision in

Pelissero v. Thompson, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 559663 (4th Cir.

Sept. 3, 1998), where we held that revised § 550.58 applied to cases

pending on the date of enactment. We further found that revised

§ 550.58 was a valid exercise of the BOP's discretion under

§ 3621(e).

Pelissero renders most of Moon's contentions moot. Moon's

remaining claims are meritless. We therefore affirm the district

court's denial of Moon's § 2241 petition on the reasoning in

Pelissero. We grant Moon's motion to consider newly-discovered

caselaw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 2
# QSBL 063016

# QSBL 033116

# QSBL 123115

# QSBL 093015

# QSBL 063015

# QSBL 033115

# QSBL 123114

# QSBL 093014

# QSBL 063014

# QSBL 033114

# QSBL 123113

# QSBL 093013

# QSBL 063013

# QSBL 033113

# QSBL 123112

# QSBL 093012

# QSBL 063012

# QSBL 033112

# QSBL 123111

# QSBL 093011

# QSBL 063011

# QSBL 033111

# image1.png
Extension of Public Comment Period

Documents

(Updated November 22, 2013)
Case 3:22-cr-00288-S Document 45 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 296
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEndocardial Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three-monthperiod ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James W. Bullock, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ James W. Bullock    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | James W. Bullock        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 9, 2004        |

 

 

----
1 We do not reach the issues resolved in part III.C of the district court’s order, Mountain Top , 338 F. Supp. 2d at 836-37, as there was no cross-appeal raising those issues. RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 05a0482p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________
M OUNTAIN T OP B EVERAGE G ROUP , I NC ., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. W ILDLIFE B REWING N.B., I NC .; J AMES S ORENSON , Defendants-Appellees. 

### X - - - -> 

### , - - N No. 04-4075

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati. No. 01-00832—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.

Argued and Submitted: December 7, 2005

Decided and Filed: December 22, 2005 Before: MOORE, ROGERS, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: David L. Petitjean, CHAPPANO WOOD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas P. Whelley II, Rachael L. Rodman, CHERNESKY, HEYMAN & KRESS, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant. David L. Petitjean, CHAPPANO WOOD, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

_________________ OPINION

_________________ ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Mountain Top Be verage Group appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wildlife Brew ing and James Sorenson on Mountain Top’s trademark infringement claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S. C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), and related state law claims, and the district court’s cancellation of Mountain Top’s “Wildcat” trademarks. After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court a ffirms the district court’s decision for the reasons stated in Judge Dlott’s order below. See Mountain Top Beverage Group, Inc. v. Wildlife Brewing N.B., Inc. et al. , 338 F. Supp. 2d 827 (S.D. Ohio 2003). 1 The district court properly gr anted summary judgment in favor of Wildlife and Sorenson and cancelled Mountain Top’s trad emark. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

1
CLERrt U.S. DtS rmcT COURT 

NORTHERN D!ST. Of TX 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LUS80Clrn!VlS:0N 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUBBOCK DIVISION 2022 NOV -9 AM 11: 51 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § DEPUTY CLERII~ 

§ 

§ 

v. § CASE NO. 5:22-CR-068-H-BQ-l 

§ 

§ 

JEREMY LELAND GARCIA § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

This case has been referred by the United States district judge to the undersigned 

for the taking of a guilty plea. The parties have consented to appear before a United States 

magistrate judge for these purposes. This Report and Recommendation on Plea is submitted 

to the court under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). 

The defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the 

defendant of, and determined that the defendant understood, the admonitions contained in 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The defendant pleaded guilty (under a written plea bargain agreement with the 

government) to Count One of the Indictment, charging defendant with a violation of 

18 US.C. §§ 922(g)(l}, 924(a)(2), that is, Convicted Felon in Possession of a Firearm. 

After examining Defendant under oath the undersigned magistrate judge finds the 

following: 

I. Defendant, upon advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing 

to enter this guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final 

approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge; 

Case 5:22-cr-00068-H-BV Document 23 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 45
2. Defendant fully understands the nature of the charges (including each 

essential element of the offense(s) charged) and penalties; 

3. Defendant fully understands the terms of the plea agreement and plea 

agreement supplement; 

4. Defendant understands all constitutional and statutory rights and wishes 

to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury and the right 

to appear before a United States district judge; 

5. Defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 

6. Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; 

7. There is a factual basis for this plea; and 

8. The ends of justice are served by acceptance of the defendant's plea of 

guilty. 

Although I have conducted these proceedings and recommend acceptance of 

Defendant's plea of guilty, the United States district judge has the power to review my 

actions and possesses final decision-making authority in this proceeding. Thus, if 

Defendant has any objections to these findings or any other action of the undersigned, he 

is required to make those known to the United States district judge within fourteen (14) 

days of today. 

Based on the above, I recommend that Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted, that 

Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed accordingly. 

Signed November 9, 2022. 

UNITED STATES MAGI 

Case 5:22-cr-00068-H-BV Document 23 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 46
#### James L. SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22908.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 31, 1944.

Henry O’Dell and Randolph Pierson, both of Galveston, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a penalty of 25 years in the penitentiary upon a charge of murder.

Upon proper application, the appeal is withdrawn.
#### Serge J. DeMay et al., Respondents, v DeMay Wine Cellars, Inc., Doing Business as Chateau De Rheims, et al., Defendants, and Philippe Guermonprez et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Finnerty, J. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Finnerty, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Green and Lawton, JJ.
L.S, DISTRICT COURT

NORTHFR,\ DIS':RICl' OF'iF\ \S

FILED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

BRUNO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-RrOS (8),

Defendant.

TN THE UNITBD STATES DISTRICT COUR

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE

DALLAS DIVISION

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

i**_

Case Number: 3:22-CR-00 I 45-M

sed.

n

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

BRUNO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-RIOS (8), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d261

(5thCir. 199'7),hasappearedbeforemepursuanttoFed.R.Crim.P. ll,andhasenteredapleaofguiltytoCountgofthe

Superseding Indictment. After cautioning and examining BRUNO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-RIOS (8) under oath

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule I l, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary

and that the offense(s) charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of

such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that BRUNO RAFAEL HERNANDEZ-RIOS (8) be adjudged guilty of 2l U.S.C. $$ 8al(a)(l), (b)(lXB); f8 U.S.C. g 2rPossession with the Intent to Distribute a

Controlled Substance, Aiding and AbettinE2and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the

offense by the districtjudge,

The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(aXl) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

The Government does not oppose release.

The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c).

The Government opposes release.

The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 31a3(a)(2) unless (l)(a) the Coun finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Govemment has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under $ 3 145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear vincing evidence

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a da

n

tr

n

n

T

n

any other

Date: October 3,2023.

TE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen ( l4) days from the date of its

service shall bar an aggrieved party from aftacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXlXB).

Case 3:22-cr-00145-M Document 326 Filed 10/03/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 844
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 29, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          12,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       424
<INVENTORY>                                     22,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,774
<PP&E>                                          23,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,009
<BONDS>                                          9,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            97
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,943
<SALES>                                         15,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,905
<CGS>                                           13,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,508)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (640)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (868)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (868)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUFFOLK, SS. 

BE IT REMEMBERED, that at the Supreme Judicial Court holden at Boston 

within and for said County of Suffolk, on December 17, 1991, 

said Court being the highest Court of Record in said Commonwealth:

Michael J. Sullivan 

being found duly qualified in that behalf, and having taken and subscribed 

the oaths required by law, was admitted to practice as an Attorney, and, by virtue

thereof, as a Counsellor at Law, in any of the Courts of the said Commonwealth: 

that said Attorney is at present a member of the Bar, and is in good standing 

according to the records of this Court*. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the

seal of said Court, this twenty-first day of September

in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty-two.

 

MAURA S. DOYLE, Clerk

* Records of private discipline, if any, such as a private reprimand imposed by the Board of Bar Overseers or by any court, are not covered by this certification. X3116. 

Amended January 2022, effective February 2022 for digital and/or electronic attestation for the Supreme Judicial Court for the County of Suffolk.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 80-1 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00086-Z-BR

§

MANUELA MAGDALENA JIMON-CASTRO (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MANUELA MAGDALENA JIMON-CASTRO (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 

261 (5th Cir. 1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 15

of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining MANUELA MAGDALENA JIMON-CASTRO (1) under oath 

concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary 

and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such 

offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that MANUELA MAGDALENA JIMON-CASTRO 

(1) be adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) - HARBORING AN ILLEGAL ALIEN and 

have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: November 14, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00086-Z-BR Document 37 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will consider two additional agenda items during the open meeting on Wednesday, November 15, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. Additionally, notice is hereby given that this meeting will be held in Room 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room, not Room 6600 as previously announced.

The subject matters of the additional agenda items will be: 

(1) The Commission will consider adopting two rules that would require greater disclosure of order execution and order routing practices by market centers and brokers. 

For further information, contact: Susie Cho, Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942-0748; and 

(2) Consideration will be given to adopting rules regarding the quotation obligations of options exchanges and market makers, and disclosure by broker-dealers of executions of customer options orders at prices inferior to the best available quote. 

For further information contact: Heather Traeger, Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942-0763. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alternations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070. 

Dated: November 7, 2000.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29010 Filed 11-7-00; 4:00 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
White Paper Comments

Attached please find comments regarding the “White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions” Posted by U.S.

EPA at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/whitepapers.html on April 15, 2014 by the Pennsylvania 

Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA). 

Thank you.

Roy Rakiewicz

Senior Consultant

All4 Inc. 

2393 Kimberton Road — P.O. Box 299 

Kimberton, PA 19442­0299 

p: 610.933.5246 x 127 — f: 610.933.5127 

rrakiewicz@all4inc.com

www.all4inc.com

Are you following us?

LinkedIn | Facebook| Twitter

Have you checked out ALL4’s Blogthis week?

Roy Rakiewicz <rrakiewicz@ALL4INC.COM>

Mon 6/16/2014 6:50 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Cusano, Ronald (RCusano@schnader.com) <RCusano@schnader.com>; 

 1 attachment

Letter.pdf; 

White Paper Comments - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
From: "Barbanell, Melissa (Salt Lake City)" < mbarbanell@barrick.com >

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/06/2010 05:38 PM

Subject:

Chuck,

I know that you have been struggling with this issue. I apologize for the delay

in getting you more information on this.

Melissa

(Se e attached file: Letter to Chuck French 08 06 10.PDF)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58171 (1977)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58172 (1977)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58173 (1977)
HeinOnline --- 42 Federal Register No. 215 page 58174 (1977)