alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sagar SAPKOTA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2399

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 19, 2017

Decided: August 10, 2017

Jason A. Dzubow, DZUBOW & PIL-CHER, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Timothy G. Hayes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sagar Sapkota, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Sapkota’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Sapkota*(B.I.A. Nov. 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
Tracy Allan PETHTEL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3674

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
1 Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Landon Newton <bnaerialinnovations@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:03 PM To: Ngo, Dan (FAA) Subject: Re: Petition for Exemption: B & N Aerial Innovations FAA-2015-0097

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Hi Dan,

The aircraft is a DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

It is a Quad Rotor Aircraft.

MAXIMUM WEIGHT: 1242g

-Michael Brewer Aerial Innovations

From: < Dan.Ngo@faa.gov > Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:11 PM Subject: Petition for Exemption: B & N Aerial Innovations FAA-2015-0097 To: mbrewer@kw.com Cc: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov

April 29, 2015

Dear Mr. Brewer:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015- 0097). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.2 

###  Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type (s)(i.e. fixed wing, rotorcra ft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be lo cated in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Any additional confidential/propr ietary materials can be e-mailed sepa rately to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you do send in supplemental documents separately, please a dd a comment on the docket, indicating that you submitted supplemental information separately.

If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by May 13, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we w ill close the docket without notifying you further.

Regards,

Dan Ngo
Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration

202.267.4264

Dan Ngo
Office of Rulemaking, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration

202.267.42643
Delio ROMANES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1253

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ANDEXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b)**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Option Care, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission as of the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Rajat Rai,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul Mastrapa, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and Exchange ActRule 13a-14(b) that:

(1)      ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

(2)      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Rajat Rai                                     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Rajat Rai                                         |
|                        |   | President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                        |   |                                              |
|                        |   |                                              |
| Date: November 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Paul Mastrapa                                 |   |
|                        |   | Paul Mastrapa                                     |
|                        |   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Luz RACEDO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1434

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
DISMISS and Opinion F iled September 16, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00983-CV
IRVINE TEK, LLC, IRVINE TE K (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED, AND SHEIKH FRAZ TAJAMMUL, Appellants V. MALIK & ASSOCIATES , PLLC, Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-05474

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Stating they no longer desire to pursue this appeal, appella nts have filed a

motion to dismiss. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss
the appeal. See id.

240983F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IRVINE TEK, LLC, IRVINE TEK (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED, AND SHEIKH FRAZ TAJAMMUL, Appellants

No. 05-24-00983-CV V.

MALIK & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-24-05474. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia, Justices Pedersen, III and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Malik & Associates, PLLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Irvine Tek, LLC, Irvine Tek (S MC-Private) Limited, and Sheikh Fraz Tajammul.

Judgment entered September 16, 2024.
EX PARTE Victor Joseph RUSSO

CR-16-0290

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Israel ANDRADE-FAVELA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10880 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 30, 2017

Brian W. McKay, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thomas Wheeler Watson, Mehaffey & Watson, Abilene, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Israel Andrade-Favela pleaded guilty to illegal reentry. The district court departed above the guidelines range of 21 to 27 *153months and sentenced him to 72 months of imprisonment to run consecutively to a 45-year state sentence and a 24-month revocation sentence. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

We assume that Andrade-Favela preserved his challenge to the reasonableness of the upward departure. The district court’s decision to depart on the basis of Andrade-Favela’s history of repeated illegal entries and the serious nature of his state conviction advances the objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and is justified by the facts of the case. The extent of the departure is further justified by Andrade-Favela’s state conviction and the deference owed to the district court. Thus, Andrade-Favela fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in departing. *See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,*442 F.3d 345, 346-48 (5th Cir. 2006); *United States v. Saldana,*427 F.3d 298, 309-16 (5th Cir. 2005).

Andrade-Favela did not preserve his challenge to the reasonableness of the consecutive sentence. The consecutive nature of the sentence was authorized by statute and the Sentencing Guidelines. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) & comment. (n.4(A), (C)). He fails to show that the district court erred, much less plainly erred, in imposing a consecutive sentence, particularly in light of the deference owed to the district court. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); *United States v. Olano,*507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); *United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v. Candia,*454 F.3d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 2006).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *153published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit
      24.1**





STATE
      OF
      TEXAS       §


COUNTY
      OF
      DALLAS            §





POWER
      OF
      ATTORNEY





Know
      all
      men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, a Director of AMERICA’S
      CAR-MART INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint TILMAN J. FALGOUT,
      III and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full
      power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant
      to
      the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007
      and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National
      Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto
      and
      other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my
      stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report,
      incorporating such changes as said attorney-in-fact deems appropriate, hereby
      ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute
      or
      substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





In
      witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 13 day of July,
      2007.








/s/
      William H.
      Henderson


WILLIAM
      H. HENDERSON











ACKNOWLEDGMENT





Before
      me
      this 13th day
      of July, 2007, came WILLIAM H. HENDERSON, personally known to me, who in my
      presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and
      acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.








/s/
      Paula
      Hodges


NOTARY
      PUBLIC
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.27





The following executive officers have a percentage benefit multiplier under the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan” of 2.4% or 2.0%, as indicated below, in lieu of the 1.6% of final average monthly remuneration benefit multiplier described in the Plan:
	
		
	2.4%
	2.0%

	Blake W. Krueger
	Michael Jeppesen

	 
	Michael D. Stornant

	 
	James D. Zwiers
EX PARTE Tristan D. WILLIAMS

1160277 (CR-15-1023)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 19, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51119

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-891-ALL

Before GARWOOD, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In May 2006, Guillermo Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal

reentry after deportation and in August 2006 was sentenced to 46

months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $500

fine, and a $100 special assessment.

Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that his

sentence was unreasonable because the district court employed
1 Hernandez did file a motion for downward departure which

the district court denied, but that motion was clearly based only

on an asserted ground (that Hernandez had, through his lawyer,

unsuccessfully sought permission to re-enter before deciding to reenter without permission) not reurged on appeal and wholly

unrelated to the now complained of double counting. Indeed,

Hernandez expressly agreed before the district court that the PSR,

which the district court accepted (and to which Hernandez made no

objection), correctly identified the applicable advisory guideline

sentencing range as 46 to 57 months’ confinement (and two to three

years supervised released and fine). And, the district court

clearly treated the guidelines as advisory only in accordance with

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). 

2

impermissible double counting and thus improperly calculated his

guideline range when it increased both his offense level and his

criminal history points based on the same prior alien smuggling

conviction.1 Citing United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657 (5th Cir.

2002), Hernandez further contends that his criminal history should

not have been increased based on his prior alien smuggling

conviction because it was an element of the illegal reentry

offense.

The district court did not plainly err in sentencing Hernandez

because the Guidelines do not prohibit such double counting,

because Henry is distinguishable from the instant case, and because

this court has approved of such double counting under similar

circumstances concerning U.S.S.G. § 2K1.2. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2,

comment. (n.6); Henry, 288 F.3d at 659, 664-65; United States v.

Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 560 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Hawkins,

69 F.3d 11, 14-15 (5th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, Hernandez’s double

counting argument fails to counter the rebuttable presumption that
3

his properly calculated guideline sentence is reasonable. See

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006).

Nothing in the record compels the conclusion that the sentence

imposed is unreasonable.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 11.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                 CHRONIMED INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                         DEC. 27,   DEC. 29,   DEC. 27,   DEC. 29,
                                                           1996       1995       1996       1995
                                                         --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                      <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>   
Primary
  Average shares outstanding .........................    12,138     12,180     12,306     12,092
  Net effect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using average market price .........       557        871        581        817
                                                         -------    -------    -------    -------

         Total .......................................    12,695     13,051     12,887     12,909
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======

Net income ...........................................   $ 1,763    $ 1,622    $ 3,016    $ 2,346
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======

Net income per share .................................   $   .14    $   .12    $   .23    $   .18
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======



Fully Diluted
  Average shares outstanding .........................    12,138     12,180     12,306     12,092
  Neteffect of dilutive stock options
     and warrants -- based on the treasury
     stock method using the higher of average
     or ending market price ..........................       557        898        581        899
                                                         -------    -------    -------    -------

         Total .......................................    12,695     13,078     12,887     12,991
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======

Net income ...........................................   $ 1,763    $ 1,622    $ 3,016    $ 2,346
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======

Net income per share .................................   $   .14    $   .12    $   .23    $   .18
                                                         =======    =======    =======    =======

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

Ariba, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-61064, 333-73458, 333-81773, 333-89119, 333-95665,333-33544, 333-46820 and 333-84916) on Form S-8 of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated April 9, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2002, and the related financial statement schedule which report appears in the September30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Ariba, Inc. 

 

Our audit report dated April 9, 2003, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensiveloss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, have been restated. Additionally, the related financial statement schedule has been restated. 

 

Mountain View, California 

April 9, 2003
K.S., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2403

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Valerie K. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6505

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 11, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Valerie K. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher P. Schandevel, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Valerie K. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *112we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Order entered September 22, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00995-CR

No. 05-21-01076-CR

MARTIN DAVILACONTRERAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-2141089-R

ORDER

By this order, we remove this case from submission on October 5, 2022, and 

set the case for submission today, September 22, 2022. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                               CERTIFICATION UNDER
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Glacier Water Services, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brian H.
McInerney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of
               the dates indicated and results of operations of the Company for
               the periods indicated.


/s/ Brian H. McInerney
----------------------

Brian H. McInerney
President and Chief Executive Officer
May 07, 2004
Joseph P. AKOWSKEY, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2160

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

Jeffrey M. Clyman of Steele Law, Hobe Sound, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Morgan W. Bates and Allison Morat of Pearson Bitman, LLP, Maitland, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Levine, Conner and Forst, JJ., concur.
Darren J. EDMONDS, Appellant, v. Monika S. EDMONDS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1281

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 18, 2018

W. Matthew Kowtko of Kowtko Law Group, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant.

Angela D. Flaherty of Flaherty Law Firm, Sarasota, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.