alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Tiberious ROUGEAU, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40323 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 5, 2018

Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David Tiberious Rougeau, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Tiberious Rougeau 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). Roug-eau has filed an untimely response and a motion asking that we consider his response despite its. untimeliness. That motion is GRANTED.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rougeau’s response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rougeau’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider that claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
A R B H o me S e a rch A cc e ss i b il i ty A

- Z I n d ex C o n t a c t Us



### F A C ILI T Y S E A R C H E N G INE

P l e a s e r e a d t h e S E A R C H H I N T S b e f or e u s in g t h e F a cil i t y S e a r ch En g ine

F ill o u t a n y o r a ll o f t h e f i e l d s b e l o w t o s e a r ch



### D a t a b a s e Y e ar : A i r B a s i n :
D is t ric t : C o u n t y :
F ac i lit y N a me : C it y :
Z i p C o d e :
F a c ili t y SI C C o de :
F a c ili t y ID :
E xc l u d e G a s S t a ti o ns , Pr i n t S h o p s , A u t o b od y Sh o p s a n d D r y C l e an e rs.

S h o w C ri t er i a P o ll u t an t d a ta
S h o w T o x i c d a ta
S h o w F a c ilit i es t h a t e m i t : or C A S Id

AR B Ho m ep a ge

A de p art m ent of t h e C a lifor

n ia E nvir o nm e ntal Prot

e ctio n Ag e ncy Ai r R e s o u r ce s B o a rd : Facili t y Sea r c h F o rm h t t p s ://ww w

. a r b

. ca

. g o v /a p p / e m s i n v / f aci nf o / f aci n f o

. p hp

1 of 1 9 / 1 3 / 20 1 6 7 : 5 3 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Horace Lorenzo BROWN, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7312

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Horace Lorenzo Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Lena S. Munasifi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Horace Lorenzo Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the dis*154trict 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 motion 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro GARCIA-BANOS, a.k.a. Pedro Banos-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 16-10480, 16-10481

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*685Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Margaret Perimeter, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Joseph A. Duarte, Trial Attorney, Joseph A. Duarte, Attorney at Law, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Pedro Garcia-Banos appeals the 70-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and consecutive 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand for resentencing.

Garcia-Banos contends that the district court failed to appreciate its discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. At sentencing, Garcia-Banos requested that the court run his sentences partially concurrently. The government responded that it doubted the lawfulness of a partially concurrent sentence. The court did not resolve the dispute so we cannot determine whether the district court understood its discretion to impose a partially concurrent sentence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) *&*cmt. n.4(C) (district court may impose sentence on a new offense to run consecutively, concurrently, or partially concurrently to undischarged term of imprisonment resulting from revocation of supervised release). Under these circumstances, we vacate Garcia-Banos’s sentence and remand for resentencing. *See United States v. Henderson,*649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).

VACATED and REMANDED for re-sentencing.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    to my knowledge, 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 and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: March 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ John H. Pelusi, Jr.John H. Pelusi, Jr.Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) Dated: March 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/Gregory R. ConleyGregory R. ConleyChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 1, 2022

No. 04-22-00015-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.P., A CHILD

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-00365

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief is hereby 

GRANTED. The Appellant's Brief is due March 17, 2022.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted
Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, F. Clay Creasey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ F. Clay Creasey, Jr.F. Clay Creasey, Jr.Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


September 12, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Difankh ASAR, a/k/a James Walter Gist, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6977

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Difankh Asar, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Difankh Asar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 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 motion 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 Asar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the *281materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,207,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,266,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (155,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,671,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,869,000
<PP&E>                                     129,076,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (42,934,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             110,889,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,564,000
<BONDS>                                     43,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,202,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               110,889,000
<SALES>                                     70,876,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            70,876,000
<CGS>                                       24,589,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,861,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,071,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,986,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,986,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,986,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1 

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 the Annual Report of Atlas America Series 27-2006 L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, certify, 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, and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

|                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEK                                        |
| Freddie M. Kotek                                            |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |
| August 14, 2014                                             |
\\DC - 040601/000003 - 5291670 v3 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MEXICO PROCEDURAL DOCKET ) ) )Docket DOT-OST-2011-0076

Application of REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC. for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 (U.S.-Mexico) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )Docket DOT-OST-2010-0152

NOTICE OF REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC. OF DORMANCY

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: Scott L. Durgin Vice President, Administration Ethan Blank Vice President and General Counsel REPUBLIC AIRWAYS HOLDINGS INC. 8909 Purdue Road Indianapolis, IN 46268 Robert E. Cohn Patrick R. Rizzi HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 +1 202 637 4999/5659 robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com Counsel for REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

February 27, 2014\\DC - 040601/000003 - 5291670 v3 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MEXICO PROCEDURAL DOCKET ) ) )Docket DOT-OST-2011-0076

Application of REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC. for an exemption pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 (U.S.-Mexico) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )Docket DOT-OST-2010-0152
February 27, 2014

NOTICE OF REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC. OF DORMANCY
The pro-rate agreement between Republic Airline Inc. (“Republic”) and Frontier Airlines, Inc. (“Frontier”) pursuant to which Republic operated U.S.–Mexico services on Frontier’s behalf has been discontinued. Republic will therefore no longer provide service on the following transborder routes, and, pursuant to the condition attached to the corresponding authority to operate service on these routes and DOT Order 2012-1-30, Republic informs the Department that its designations on these routes are now available for other carriers: Denver-Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo Denver-Puerto Vallarta Kansas City-Puerto Vallarta Kansas City-San Jose del Cabo In light of the dormancy of these U.S.-Mexico services, Republic does not intend to apply for renewal of the exemption authority for these routes granted in Docket DOT-OST-2010- 0152, which expires on May 14, 2014.Dormancy Notice of Republic Airline Inc. Page 2

\\DC - 040601/000003 - 5291670 v3 Respectfully submitted,

Robert E. Cohn Patrick R. Rizzi HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Counsel for REPUBLIC AIRLINE INC.

cc: bob.kneisley@wnco.com; marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com; robert.wirick@aa.com; howard.kass@aa.com; sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com; chris.walker@delta.com; jhill@cooley.com; jyoung@yklaw.com; dkirstein@yklaw.com; Thomas.Ting@suncountry.com; dan.weiss@united.com; barbara.russell@virginamerica.com; esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; brett.kruger@dot.gov; brian.hedberg@dot.gov
*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60457

ROBERTO DAVILA,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Appeals

(A73 693 090)

September 4, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberta Davila petitions for review of an adverse decision by the Board of

Immigration Appeals. Having considered the record and the briefs, and finding no

basis for review, the petition for review is DENIED.
#### Shau-Ron SYKES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56387

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Shau-Ron Sykes, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Shau-Ron Sykes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 action arising from an alleged rape and assault in Los Angeles County Men’s Central Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C, § 1291. We review de novo. *Belanus v. Clark,*796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Watison v. Canter,*668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We vacate and remand,.

The district court determined that Sykes’ claims were time-barred and that Sykes is not entitled to equitable tolling. However, the district court failed to consider whether the statute of limitation should be tolled because Sykes “lack[ed] the legal capacity to make decisions” at the time the claims accrued. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 352(a); *see also Wallace v. Kato,*549 U.S. 384, 394, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (“We have generally referred to state law for tolling rules, just as we have for the length of statutes of limitations.”). Therefore, we vacate and remand for the district court to consider this question in the first instance,

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 1398 | December 11, 2018 Page 1 of 2



### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case

.
A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Michael Frischkorn Frischkorn Law LLC Fortville, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Henry A. Flores, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIA NA
Crosby Rayne Waller , Appellan t/Cross

-

Appellee

- Petitioner ,
v. 

### State of Indiana , Appellee /Cross

-

Appellant

- Respondent December 11, 2018

Court of Appeals Ca se No. 18A

- CR

- 1398 Appe al from the Hamilton Superior Court The Honorable William J. Hughes, Judg e Trial Court Cause No. 29D03

- 1611

- F5

- 8588

Crone , Judge .
[1] Crosby Rayne Waller was serving probation after pleading g uilty to level 6 felony battery against a public safety officer. The State alleged, and the trialCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A

- CR

- 1398 | December 11, 2018 Page 2 of 2

court found, that Waller violated his pro bation by committ ing new offenses and
t aking illegal drugs . T he court revoked his probation and executed the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Waller failed to perfect an appeal within thirty days and sought leave to file a belated appeal p ursuant to Indiana Post

- Conviction Rule 2 , which the trial court granted

. H e asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in executing the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. The State cross

- appeals, to which Waller does not respond, cl aiming that the trial court erred in granting Waller leave to file a belated appeal and that we must therefore dismiss. Finding the State’s cross

appeal issue dispositive, we dismiss. See Dawson v. State , 943 N.E.2d 1281, 1281 (Ind. 2011) (adopting this Court’s analysis that Post

- Conviction Rule 2 does not allow belated appeals from orders revoking probation )

.
[2] Dismissed.

Vaidik, C.J. , and Mathias, J., concur.
fLCASE flESKMO TO: 

' " |i«rw,CUi*K0l 

1-400-9M-HU 

fT tnA*>'*MiA«<iN*.«350 

'-^ caOkBAy.m9f4M 

r-i «|j fC i*c«MiN*i>i*i. at 

' - ' RP«>uM.O«»MT» 

n 

•JT.-..'C\ I OF 

CRTAIIOM 

Cciniire£(£( of tlje Wiwitth ^tatt s 

PETEnA-OcFAZIO 

TltANSPOniATION AND 

imiMtTftUCTUAe 

tWICOMMIIllU' 

IIEGHVMVSANOTIIANSIT 

CH«Wm 

AVUTKM 

fMLHOAM 

AU9US1 2A, 2010 

HOMCIAND SCCURITV 

SvKCMifrncfl. 

TBMiSPMIAItm tECUIUTV ANO 

MrRASTIMJCTUW PHOIECTIOM 

iMANAOClUENT. PfVEf nOAhOW. AND OVEflSKWr 

KA1URAL RESOURCES 

SbMOUMim 

NAllONAL rMOCS. POHSTIL AND fMlI C IAM » 

Secretary Ray LaHood wArnAmrancR 

US Deparanent of Transportation 

Washington OC 

Deei Secretary LaHood: 

Please note my support for the application submittod by the Eugene 

Aixport for a Small Community Air Service Development Program grant to 

improve air service . 

The Eugene Airport serves nearly 700,000 are a residents, but 

current air servic e is insufficient. Federal funds wil l allow the 

airport to establis h a link between Eugene and San Jose , California . 

Increasing flight availabilit y will enhance use of the airport and 

provide valuable benefits to this economically vibran t region. 

Please give this request full and fair consideration . 

Sincerely, 

PETER DeFAZIO 

Meinbei: of Congcess 

PAD:P«n* 

THIS STATIQNERV PRMTEO ON PAPCft MAOE WITH RECVaED FIBERS