alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Adrian HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Also Known as Jaime Adrian Amaro Hernandez-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41382

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

*229
      *Before JOLLY,*SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Hernandez-Hernandez pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced to a 41-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, he renews his challenge to application of the eight-level aggravated-felony enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(C). The gravamen of his position is that, in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015), the definition of a crime of violence (“COV”) in 18 U.S.C, § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Therefore, he contends, his Texas conviction of evading arrest with a motor vehicle does not qualify as a COV under § 16(b) and thus is not an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) and § 2Ll,2(b)(l)(C).

Hernandez-Hernandez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672-77 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert, filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected a constitutional challenge to § 16(b) as facially vague. Moreover, the Supreme Court recently decided *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 890, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), wherein it declined to extend *Johnson*and held that “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause.”

In view of the foregoing, Hernandez-Hernandez’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-87,447-01

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, EX REL. SHAREN WILSON, Relator

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

IN CAUSE NO. 1287820X1

IN THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 10 FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this

Court. The petition requests that we issue a writ of mandamus in the underlying case, ordering the

statutory county court to reform its judgment, which ordered less than the full amount of a bail bond,

to reflect the full amount of the bond.

Relator does not show that she brought this action to the intermediate court of appeals,

therefore the Court denies leave to file the application. See Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003); TEXAS GOV’T CODE §22.221(b)(1)(West 2017)(effective Sept. 1, 2017).
2

Filed: October 25, 2017

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03443]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

Docket No. PTO-C-2022-0004]


National Medal of Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation 
Committee Charter Renewal

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Acting Chief Financial Officer/Assistant Secretary of 
Commerce for Administration, with the concurrence of the General 
Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the National Medal of 
Technology and Innovation Nomination Evaluation Committee (NMTI 
Committee) on February 9, 2022.

DATES: The Charter for the NMTI Committee was renewed on February 9, 
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Hosler, Program Manager, 
National Medal of Technology and Innovation Program, United States 
Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; 
571-272-8514; or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442a29302d04313734302b6a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8a6a5bca188bdbbb8bca7e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>. Information is also available at 
www.uspto.gov/nmti.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Acting Chief Financial Officer/Assistant 
Secretary of Commerce for Administration, with the concurrence of the 
General Services Administration, renewed the Charter for the NMTI 
Committee on February 9, 2022. The renewed Charter expires on February 
9, 2024. The NMTI Committee members are distinguished experts from the 
private and public sectors with experience in and an understanding of 
technology and technological innovation. The NMTI Committee was 
established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
provides advice to the Secretary of Commerce regarding recommendations 
of nominees for the National Medal of Technology and Innovation 
(Medal). The duties of the NMTI Committee are solely advisory in 
nature. Nominations for this Medal are solicited through an open, 
competitive, and nationwide call, and the NMTI Committee members are 
responsible for reviewing the nominations received. The NMTI Committee 
evaluates the nominees and forwards its recommendations through the 
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office to the Secretary of 
Commerce, who, in turn, forwards her recommendations for the Medal to 
the President.

Andrew Hirshfeld,
Commissioner for Patents, Performing the Functions and Duties of the 
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-03443 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7393
QUINCY D. BYRD, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. HILL, Superintendent; S. D. VOGEL, M.D.; H. OZINAL, M.D.; B. ROSS, Nurse; A. CRAMER, M.D.; V. SMITH, RNCB; V. SMITH, Chief Physician/OHS, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1747-AM) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quincy D. Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Titus, CARR, GOODSON, LEE & WARNER, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Rosalie Vaughan Pemberton, TIMBERLAKE, SMITH, THOMAS & MOSES, P.C., Staunton, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and deny Appellee Hill's motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Byrd v. Hill , No. CA-96-1747-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 1997). 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
U.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration February 17 , 20 1 6
US Depa rtment ofT r a n s portation Docket Operat ions, M-30 West Building Ground F loor Room W 12-140 1200 New J e rsey Ave nu e , SE Washington , DC 20590 Subject: Request for Extension of Exemption No
. 9944, Regulatory Do cket # F AA

- 2002- 1 2249 Dear Si rs : FAA F li ght Inspection Services , (F IS), Operating Certifica te # RU3A249N , reque sts th at it b e g r

anted an extens ion of exemption No. 9944 , as a me nded
. That exempt ion from 61.3 (a) and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows FIS to issue facs imil e pilot certificates and medical certificates to crewm e mb e rs whos e certificates have been lost , dest r oyed , or misplaced. The r e ha ve be e n no changes in the condi tion s and reasons relative to public inter es t and safety that were the basis for granti ng the original exemptio n. We feel con tinu ed opera tion under th e provisions of th e exe mption would be in the pub li c inte re st. Addi ti o nall y , we request that the exemption period b e granted for a pe r iod of three yea rs . Thank you for you r conside rat io n. S inc e r ely ,**f~r Floyd**  A
. Badsky Director of Operations Flight In spectio n Ope rat i o n s Group Flig ht Inspection Services
----

| (1) | the                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the period ended                December                31, 2004 (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(a) 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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                  November 21, 2005 |   |                                                                                |                              |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                                |   |                                                                                | /s/                Jim Mayer      |  |
|                                                |   |                                                                                | **Jim                Mayer**      |
|                                                |   | **Interim              Chief Executive Officer**                                    |
|                                                |   | **And              Chief Restructuring Officer**                                    |
|                                                |   |                                                                                |                              |
| Dated:                  November 21, 2005 |   |                                                                                |                              |
|                                                |   |                                                                                | /s/                Jeff Figlewicz |  |
|                                                |   |                                                                                | **Jeff                Figlewicz** |
|                                                |   | **Corporate              Controller and Principal Accounting              Officer** |

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Andrew K. Moller, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofChristopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  The quarterly report of the Company on Form10-Q****for the period ended June 2, 2007 asfiled with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

2.  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|                |     |                                                                    |
|---------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: July 12, 2007 |     |                                                                    |
|                |     |                                                                    |
|                | By:      | /s/ Andrew K. Moller                                                    |   |
|                | * * | Andrew K. Moller*Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector MEZA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51244 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 12, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hector Meza-Perez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Meza-Perez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Meza-Perez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANT*330ED, counsel is excused from -further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot based on Meza-Perez’s completion of his sentence. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997            DEC-31-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997            JAN-01-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997            SEP-30-1997  
<CASH>                                      1,170,000              1,170,000  
<SECURITIES>                                        0                      0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              34,254,000             34,254,000 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                      0 
<INVENTORY>                                 2,576,000              2,576,000 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           43,917,000             43,917,000
<PP&E>                                      5,986,000              5,986,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0                      0   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             69,074,000             69,074,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      13,234,000             13,234,000   
<BONDS>                                             0                      0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                      0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0                      0 
<COMMON>                                      107,000                107,000 
<OTHER-SE>                                 25,589,000             25,589,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               69,074,000             69,074,000
<SALES>                                             0                      0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           27,690,000             71,364,000
<CGS>                                      22,395,000             56,200,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               4,076,000             11,445,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (414,000)              (577,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              612,000              1,574,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            569,000              1,308,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               805,000              3,142,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  352,000              1,333,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                      0
<CHANGES>                                           0                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  453,000              1,809,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0                      0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.04                   0.17 
        

</TABLE>
Mauricio CORREDOR, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0951

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Department oflransportation 

Federal Aviation AdminSiation 

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE THIRD CLASS 

This certifies that (Full name and address): 

THOMAS Michael KANE 

179 East Positano Avenue 

St Augustine FL 32092 USA 

Date ofBirth Sex 

M 

has met the medical standards prescribed in part67, Federal Aviation 

Reaulations. for this class of Medical Certificate. 

... 

Q) 

c 

·e 

lQ 

X 

w 

Must wear corrective lenses . 

AIRMAN'S SIGNATURE 

FAA Form 8500-9 ~'=I s oporn"'' '"""" Blnx>o
#### Gary A. Rugg, Respondent, v Betty A. Rugg, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 629]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered February 9, 2001, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maraño, J.), dated August 12, 2002, which, inter alia, denied her motion to hold the plaintiff former husband in contempt.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt for *528failing to effectuate the transfer of one half of the value of his annuity was properly denied. Contempt requires a showing of willfulness *(see Fox v Fox,*120 AD2d 488 [1986]; *Pinto v Pinto,*120 AD2d 337 [1986]). Since there was no showing that the transfer did not take place due to the willful conduct of the plaintiff, the motion was properly denied.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1825. EDISON v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES et al.

The above-styled appeal was docketed in this Court on July 15, 2024. Pursuant

to Rule 23 (a) of the Court of Appeals the Appellant’s brief was to be filed in this

Court by August 5, 2024. The Appellant failed to file a motion for extension of time

or a timely brief. Instead, the Appellant filed an untimely brief on August 19, 2024. 

This appeal is hereby DISMISSED. See Court of Appeals Rules 16 (b), 23 (a). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 21, 2024

08/21/2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leopoldo DUARTE-GANDARILLA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20065 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

*369Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leopoldo Duarte-Gandarilla, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leopoldo Duarte-Gandarilla has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Duarte-Gandarilla has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cm. R. 42.2.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50188 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Guerrero, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Guerrero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.