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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 99-41004 Summary Calendar

LINETTE GLADIS ABREGO; LUIS GERARDO ABREGO, In his own right and name and as next friend to is minor daughter, Linette, Petitioners-Appellants,

versus E.M. TROMINSKI, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-99-CV-1

-------------------- June 13, 2000 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Abrego and his daughter, Linette, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged the denial of Luis Abrego’s request to be paroled into the United States pending a resolution of his appeal of his removal order. The Abregos argue that Luis Abrego was entitled to a hearing on his request to be paroled into the country andNo. 99-41004 -2- that the denial of his parole request constituted a due process violation. Without regard to whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) applies and prohibits habeas review of the Abregos’ claims or whether the Abregos were in custody for purposes of having standing to file habeas petition, we note that the decision not to parole Luis Abrego into the country was within the Attorney General’s discretion.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5). Because it was a discretionary decision, and given that Luis Abrego had already been deported when he filed his parole request, the Abregos did not have a procedural due process right to a hearing or a liberty interest in Luis Abrego being paroled. See Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 988 F.2d 1437, 1442-43 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s dismissal of the Abregos’ habeas petition is
AFFIRMED.
Order entered May 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00128-CV

IN RE RYAN GALLAGHER

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-16008

ORDER

After the Court instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting noted 

deficiencies, appellant tendered a brief to this Court on May 4, 2020. The Court 

sent appellant notice that the brief was not filed because the appendix items were 

not text searchable or electronically bookmarked. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(h). 

Before the Court is appellant’s May 4, 2020 “Motion to Acknowledge 

Constitutional Challenge and Request for Waiver of TRAP Rule 9.4(h).” We 

GRANT the motion. We ORDER appellant’s brief tendered to this Court on May 

4, 2020 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 

### 07264 Removed from Public (Non-CBI) Docket 1 Copyright

Flag 2 File Name Description 07264\07264_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 07264\07264_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 07264\07264_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07264\07264_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07264\07264_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07264\07264_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07264\Certification Statement_ 07264.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x 07264\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\07264_ASWF2004.dwg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Zollie Lee REDDICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.8





 EXHIBIT 10.8 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED 

AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of October 11, 2018, between Entercom Communications Corp.,
a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and David J. Field (“Executive”) in order to amend as follows that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of April 22, 2016 and as amended
effective November 16, 2017, between the Company and Executive (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
Executive are parties to the Employment Agreement; 
 WHEREAS, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement to alter certain
compensation terms thereof; 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth below, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows: 
 1.    Parachute
Payments. 
 Section 12 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“12.    Reserved.” 

2.    No Other Changes to the Employment Agreement. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the terms
of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Amendment as of
the date first set forth above. 
  

	
	 /S/ David J. Field

	David J. Field
	
	Date: October 11, 2018
	
	Entercom Communications Corp.
	
	 /S/ Andrew P. Sutor, IV

	Andrew P. Sutor, IV
	Executive Vice President, General Counsel
	
	Date: October 11, 2018
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of RAE Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |     |  |                        
|------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|             |  | By: |  | /s/ Donald W. Morgan   
|June 6, 2005 |  |     |  | Donald W. Morgan       
|             |  |     |  | Vice President and     
|             |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Leonard CAMERON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-69

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-05-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-05-1997
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    89881
<ALLOWANCES>                                       719
<INVENTORY>                                      42560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                133560
<PP&E>                                           16052
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  159888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            75034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           113
<OTHER-SE>                                       82115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    159888
<SALES>                                         349313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                349313
<CGS>                                           291741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   291741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  17916
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              11467
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     11467
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013 and we consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated this 28th day of March, 2014 |
|------------------------------------|

| "Glen Cole" |
|-------------|

----

----
**Exhibit 12.2**

I, Devyani Patel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20–F of Commtouch Software Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual 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 this report;

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are 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 our 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 report; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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 function):

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; and

| Date: June 16 , 2005 | /s/Devyani Patel |
|----------------------|------------------|

| ——————————— |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               | Devyani Patel |   |
|  
V.P. Finance

 
 

                          |
Victor Brian HUTCHERSON, Appellant, v. Corrine Elizabeth ROGNLIE, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Victor Brian Hutcherson, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Upon consideration of Appellant's response to the Court's order to show cause, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final order. *See**1210*Freiha v. Freiha* , 169 So.3d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ; *Hinckley v. Dep't of Revenue, ex rel. K.A.C.H.* , 927 So.2d 73, 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Rowe, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of QuickLogic Corporation.



By:

/s/ E. Thomas HartDate:

May 14, 2010Name:

E. Thomas HartTitle:

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


I, Ralph S. Marimon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 4, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of QuickLogic Corporation.



By:

/s/ Ralph S. MarimonDate:

May 14, 2010Name:

Ralph S. MarimonTitle:

Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-15-00021-CV

Sidney B. Hale, Jr.

v.

City of Bonham

(No. CV-14-41722 IN 336TH DISTRICT COURT OF FANNIN COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 FEE

INDIGENT

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

$10.00

$315.00

$223.00

$50.00

$25.00

$100.00

$20.00

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

CARRIE M MCKERLEY

COATS & EVANS, PC

GARY L. EVANS

CARRIE M MCKERLEY

CARRIE M MCKERLEY

CARRIE M MCKERLEY

CARRIE M MCKERLEY

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

July 6, 2016.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
November 11, 2011

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12-140

Dear Sir or Madam,

Gateway Canyons Air Tours, LLC, FAA Certificate #7GCA305M, is requesting that that an exemption be 

given allowing all company personnel to be tested under one Alcohol and Drug Testing Program. 

We are extremely hopeful that this exemption could go into effect by November 22, 2011.

We are a FAR 135 “on Demand, Charter and Tour operation, and a FAR 91, “local tour” operation.

W have three aircraft – two fixed wing, and one helicopter. All are certificated to operate under Part 91. 

We have two pilots, both of whom are drug tested under our Part 135 certificate. 

I have direct contact with all the company personnel and am confident of my ability to supervise the 

Alcohol and Drug Testing Program. An exemption would also decrease the company’s expense of having 

to maintain two separate programs. 

If you have concerns or questions, please feel free to contact me, Michael J. Gullotti, at any of the 

following:

Cell 1-970-314-3469

Office 1-970-243-4359

Email michael. gullotti@gatewaycanyonsairtours.com

I look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for your time and attention regarding this request.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael J. Gullotti

Chief Pilot

Gateway Canyons Air Tours, LLC
Patrick Lamon BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed May 25, 2018

Patrick Lamon Brown, Madison, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Lamon Brown appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 We affirm the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion without further discussion. As for Brown's motion for postconviction relief, we affirm as to Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Nine, Ten, and Eleven. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Brown's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a defective jury instruction and failing to inform the trial court about his mental illness, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Six and Eight and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ). We conclude that Ground Five of Brown's motion, alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, was insufficiently pled. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this ground and remand for the purpose of providing Brown an opportunity to amend this claim. *See**Spera v. State*, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

1

The trial court disposed of both motions in one order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         (5,711)                (43,315)
<SECURITIES>                                  (10,123)                (31,691)
<RECEIVABLES>                                    (662)                 (3,557)
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (55)                   (380)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              (17,575)                (81,151)
<PP&E>                                         (4,938)                (25,273)
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (810)                 (3,242)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                (22,617)               (107,648)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (4,692)                (21,645)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                   (36,765)                       0
<COMMON>                                         (443)               (156,827)
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,584                   4,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (22,617)               (107,648)
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (2,343)                (12,431)
<CGS>                                          (9,039)                (29,496)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (9,039)                (29,496)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (10,420)                (35,422)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 354                   1,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,762)                (50,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (2)                     (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,764)                (50,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,764)                (50,938)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.50)                  (4.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.50)                  (4.58)


</TABLE>
ALI HASSAN ABDULLAH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case Nos. 2D16-4054 2D16-5078

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.