alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eric FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNKNOWN TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-10265 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 21, 2017

Eric Flores, Pro Se

Before PRADO, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Flores, Texas prisoner # 2051801, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. As Flores has raised only fanciful allegations, including claims that he has already been executed and that the defendants have used “mind eontrol-*352ling computers to cause transport correctional officers to drive a prison bus into an oncoming train, he has failed to show that he should be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) or that his appeal of the district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. *See Banos v. O’Guin,*144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Flores’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied.

The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the appeal. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 *&*n.24 (5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. On November 6, 2017, we imposed a monetary sanction in the amount of $100 and barred Flores from filing any pleading in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction until that sanction was paid in full. *See Flores v. Moore,*No. 17-20103, 700 Fed.Appx. 367, 2017 WL 5152150 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017). Because the instant appeal was pending while the recent sanction was imposed, we will not impose an additional sanction in the instant case. Nevertheless, Flores is WARNED that any future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will subject him to additional and progressively more severe sanctions. Flores is DIRECTED to review all pending matters and move to dismiss any that are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R, 47.5.4.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T E DU AR DO MI Z AE L P AN T AL E ON S I E R R A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 70585 A ge nc yN o. A 042- 344- 990 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 10, 2013 ** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E duar do M i z a e lP ant a l e on- S i e rr a , anat i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED JU N 13 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 70585 2 § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , A vagyan v. H

older , 646 F . 3d 672, 674 ( 9th C i r . 2011) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v ie w . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P an ta le o n - S ie rr a ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n a s u n tim e lyw h e r e th e m o tio n w a s f ile dm o r e th an f

iv e y e ar s a f

te rh is r e m o v a l o r d e rb e c am e f in a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and P ant al eon-S i erra f a i l e d t o de m ons tr at e the due di l i ge nc e r e qui r e d t o obt a i n e qui t abl e t ol l i ng of the f ilin g d e a d lin e , s e e A v agy an , 646 F . 3d at679 ( e qui t abl e t ol l i ng i s ava i l abl e t o a pe t i t i one rw ho i s pr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng be c aus e of

de c e pt i on, f

r aud ore rr or , and e x e r c is e ddu e d ilig e n c e in d is c o v e r in g s u c hc ir c u m s tan c e s ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00147-CR

CAMERON MILES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 16th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F17-418-158

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O RDER

Cameron Miles appeals from his conviction of three counts of sexual assault. Miles has 

filed a motion to abate the appeal in which he asks this Court to remand the matter to the trial court 

for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of his statement 

to an officer of the Denton Police Department. Miles filed a pretrial motion in the trial court 

seeking suppression of the statement claiming that it was not voluntarily made. The appellate 

record is devoid of a written ruling on Miles’ motion to suppress, and the trial court did not enter 

findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding that motion to suppress.

Article 38.22, Section 6, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states, in pertinent part,

In all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an 

accused, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as 

to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the statement 

has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of 

law and fact by the court in a hearing in the absence of the jury, the court must enter 

an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily 

made, along with the specific finding of facts upon which the conclusion was based, 

which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 6 (West 2018) (emphasis added); see Vasquez v. State, 

411 S.W.3d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Because the requirements of Article 38.22, Section 6, were not met in this case, we abate 

this appeal to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4; Vasequez, 411 S.W.3d at 920. The trial 

court is instructed to enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether Miles’ statement was 

voluntarily made and detailing the specific findings of fact on which that conclusion was based. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.22, § 6.
3

The order shall be filed with this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s record within 

twenty-one days of the date of this order.

The abatement will terminate and this Court’s jurisdiction will resume on the filing of the 

supplemental clerk’s record.

All appellate timetables are hereby stayed and will resume on our receipt of the 

supplemental clerk’s record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: September 18, 2018
**Exhibit 10.12A**

Dear Rob, 

As approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of BigBand Networks, Inc. (the “Company”)on December 9, 2007, I provide you with the following amendment to your offer letter dated January 4, 2004 (the “Offer Letter”), as amended. 

Salary: 

Effective December 15, 2007, you will be paid a base salary of $18,750 per month ($225,000 onan annualized basis), in accordance with the customary practices of the Company as established and modified from time to time. 

Bonus:

You shall have the opportunity to earn a performance bonus up to 50% of your annual base salary ($112,500). 

Severance: 

If you experience a TerminationEvent other than “for cause” (as such terms are defined in your stock option agreement and Offer Letter, respectively), or the principal place of your employment is relocated to a location more than fifty (50) miles from Redwood City,California without your express written consent, you will be eligible to receive a severance benefit in an amount equal to six (6) months of your annual base salary and six (6) months of health benefits under COBRA. Additionally, if youexperience a Termination Event other than “for cause,” or the principal place of your employment is relocated to a location more than fifty (50) miles from Redwood City, California without your express written consent, within six(6) months following a Change of Control (as such term is defined in your stock option agreement) you will be eligible to receive a severance benefit in an amount equal to twelve (12) months of your annual base salary and twelve(12) months of health benefits under COBRA. 

In all other respects, the terms of your employment shall remain as outlined in the OfferLetter.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460



## NOV - 4 2011

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

The Honorable Kent Conrad United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear SenatorConrad: Thank you for your letter ofOctober 6, 2011, co-signed by two ofyour colleagues, addressed to Administrator LisaJackson in which you request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency respect the technicaljudgmentofNorth Dakota as the state permitting authority and acceptthe state's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze. We acknowledge the importance ofthe issues related Lo several coal-fired powerplants in North Dakota and agree that states have primary responsibility to develop regional haze SIPs. However, the Clean Air Act (CAA) clearly requires the EPA to reviewthe adequacy ofthe regional haze SIPs and requires the EPA to take action to correct any deficiencies,in the SIP where the EPA has disapproved all or part ofa SIP. See CAA sections 110(k) and (c).
In our September21,2011 proposal, we agreed with many ofNorth Dakota's decisions regarding CAArequired Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

- emission controls for certain types ofolder industrial facilities emitting airpollutants that reduce visibiliLY. However, because North Dakota's analyses ofcontrols for some ofthe sources subject to BART, and ofcontrols on other sourcesthat could help provide reasonable progress towards visibility goals, are not merely different from our own, but appearto be significantly flawed, we proposed disapproval ofthose parts ofthe SIP and proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to ensurethat air pollution improvements continue. Specifically, we disagree with North Dakota's conclusions that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from facilities in North Dakota is technically infeasible. We also found thatNorth Dakota has substantiaJIy over-estimated costs and based some control level conclusions on modeling techniques which substantially understate visibility improvements. Nonetheless, ourproposal notes that should we finalize ourFIP as proposed, the affected facilities and/orthe state may request reconsideration ofour final action based on the potential outcomes ofany field testing ofSCR feasibility they may choose to undertake priorto the date the emission limits in ourFIP become effective.
We thank you for testifying at the public hearing held on October 14,2011. We welcome public comments on ourproposal until November 21,2011. We intend to carefully considerthese comments as we make a final decision. Ourcurrent schedule, which is court-ordered, requires us to make a final decision on our proposal no laterthan February 9, 2012.

Internet Address (URl) • hllp IIwwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable' Printed With Vegerable 0,1 Based Inks on 100% Poslconsurner. Process ChlOrine Free Recycled Pape,Again, thank you for your letter. Ifyou have further questions, please contact me or your staffmay cal1 Josh Lewis in EPA's Office ofCongressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202564-2095) Sincerely

ina McCarthy Assistant Administrator
# EUR-Lex - 32003E0471 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003E0471

**Common Strategy 2003/471/CFSP of the European Council of 20 June 2003 amending Common Strategy 1999/414/CFSP on Russia in order to extend the period of its application **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 26/06/2003 P. 0068 - 0068 *

Common Strategy 2003/471/CFSP of the European Council

of 20 June 2003

amending Common Strategy 1999/414/CFSP on Russia in order to extend the period of its application

THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 13(2) thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation of the Council,

Whereas:

(1) Common Strategy 1999/414/CFSP of the European Union of 4 June 1999 on Russia(1) expires on 24 June 2003.

(2) It is considered necessary to amend this Common Strategy in order to extend the period of its application,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON STRATEGY:

Sole Article

In Part IV of Common Strategy 1999/414/CFSP the first point entitled "DURATION" shall be replaced by the following:

"This Common Strategy shall apply until 24 June 2004. It may be prolonged, reviewed and, if necessary, adapted by the European Council on the recommendation of the Council."

This Common Strategy shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Thessaloniki, 20 June 2003.

For the European Council

The President

C. Simitis

(1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1999, p. 1.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6199 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6199

    To require the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention to complete a study on the human health implications of per- 
 and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

  Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention to complete a study on the human health implications of per- 
 and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in drinking water.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in Testing Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. STUDY BY CDC ON HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL 
              SUBSTANCES CONTAMINATION IN DRINKING WATER.

    (a) In General.--The Director of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention shall--
            (1) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, commence a study on the human health implications of 
        per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in 
        drinking water; and
            (2) not later than 2 years and 60 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act--
                    (A) complete such study; and
                    (B) submit a report to the Congress on the results 
                of such study.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this Act, there 
is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16001-16002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

[[Page 16002]]

    Name of Committee: Safety and Occupational Health Study Section 
(SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
    Dates: June 14-15, 2022.
    Times: 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: The meeting will convene to address matters related to the 
conduct of Study Section business and for the study section to consider 
safety and occupational health-related grant applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goldcamp, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 
26506, Telephone: (304) 285-5951; Email: [email protected].
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-05802 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier CISNEROS, also known as El Negro, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40417

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 18, 2017

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

Javier Cisneros, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

*221PER CURIAM: *

Javier Cisneros, former federal prisoner # 65822-079, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition challenging his federal conviction of three counts of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana, one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, and one count of money laundering. He argues that the district court erred by dismissing his § 2255 petition for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive petition.

In 1996, Cisneros filed a post-conviction motion, which was recharacterized by the district court as a § 2255 motion. Because Cisneros was not notified of the district court’s intent to treat his motion as a § 2255 motion and was not afforded the opportunity to withdraw the motion or to amend it to include all of his § 2255 claims, it cannot count as an initial § 2255 motion and cannot be used to bar a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See Castro v. United States,*540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003).

In 1998, Cisneros filed a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied without addressing the merits of his claims. Cisne-ros subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of that order, arguing that the district court had not considered the merits of his § 2255 motion. The district court denied the motion. Cisneros then sought a COÁ. In an order issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in *Castro,*a COA was denied on the grounds that Cisneros’s 1998 § 2255 motion was an unauthorized, successive motion. Because his first post-conviction motion does not count as an initial § 2255 motion, *see Castro,*540 U.S. at 383, 124 S.Ct. 786, his 1998 motion should not have been treated as successive, *cf. McDaniel v. United States,*242 Fed. Appx. 217, 218 (5th Cir. 2007). As such, his February 2017 motion also should not have been treated as successive.

Consequently, Cisneros has shown that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). We therefore GRANT both the motion for a COA and the motion for leave to proceed in' forma pauperis, VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings. *See Whitehead v. Johnson,*157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R. App. P. 24.

*

 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 RE: William C. BOND, Petitioner.

No. 17-1955

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

William C. Bond, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William C. Bond petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. We conclude that Bond is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

We have reviewed Bond’s petition and conclude that he has not established the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus relief. To the extent Bond challenges the district court’s rulings in the action below, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). To the extent Bond requests *175that the district court judge be ordered to recuse himself from participation in Bond’s action, Bond has not established extrajudicial bias. *See In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Because we dispose of the mandamus petition in this opinion on its merits, we respectfully deny Bond’s motions to allow a former United States Circuit Judge to appear in the case as “advisory counsel,” which motions we docketed as a motion to appoint counsel and a supplemental motion to appoint counsel. We deny Bond’s motions to require a response to the mandamus petition and to order-oral argument and 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*