alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

       CONSENT OF RICHARD L. EDMONSON, GENERAL COUNSEL OF EEX CORPORATION

     I hereby consent to the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for
the quarter ended June 30, 2002, for EEX Corporation in accordance with the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. I consent to the inclusion
in such report of my opinion and reference to my name in the form and context in
which they appear, and the incorporation by reference thereof into EEX's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-24595, 333-41979 and 333-81203)
and on Form S-3 (No. 333-64427).

                                    /s/ Richard L. Edmonson
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Richard L. Edmonson
                                    Senior Vice President, General
                                    Counsel and Secretary

Houston, Texas
August 13, 2002
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 105

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 10 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 9), 1997

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Appropriations

NOVEMBER 10 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 9), 1997

The Committee on Appropriations discharged; considered and pass

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1998, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(3) of Public Law 105–46 is further

4 amended by striking ‘‘November 10, 1997’’ and inserting

5 in lieu thereof ‘‘November 14, 1997’’, and each provision

6 amended by sections 122 and 123 of such public law shall

7 be applied as if ‘‘November 14, 1997’’ was substituted for

8 ‘‘October 23, 1997’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-2150

BENNY J. FLEMMING, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

On April 2, 1999, the Court, in a single-judge order, vacated a July 29, 1997, Board of

Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision and remanded the appellant's claim to reopen a previously and

finally disallowed claim for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) service connection for

spontaneous pnuemothraces. The Court cited as a basis for the remand the opinion of the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.

1998), which was issued after the July 1997 Board decision on appeal and which overruled the

caselaw (principally, Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991)) that had been applied by the

Board in its decision. The appellant has filed, through counsel, an application for an award of

reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d) (EAJA). 

On April 6, 2001, the Secretary filed, in Vaughn v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 119 (2000) (per

curiam order), a response in opposition to the EAJA application of the appellant in that case. The

Court has ordered that the parties file supplemental briefing in that case as to whether an appellant

who obtains a remand based on statutory revisions enacted subsequent to the Board decision on

appeal may be considered a "prevailing party" in view of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in

Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Resources, 121 S.

Ct. 1835, 1839 (2001). The Court notes that the nature of the relief afforded by the Court in Vaughn

and in the instant case is similar, and that the disposition of Vaughn could materially affect the

instant proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will stay further

proceedings in the instant case pending the disposition of Vaughn.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, sua sponte, that this matter is stayed pending the outcome of Vaughn, supra, or

further order of the Court.

DATED: October 5, 2001 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Alliance
Imaging, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



|Dated: May 15, 2003 |  | /s/KENNETH S. ORDKenneth S. Ord
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Fabian MARTINEZ-CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40345 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 18, 2018

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Fabian Martinez-Contreras pled guilty to being found in the United States following a deportation that occurred subsequent to a felony conviction. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s assessment of the 10-level enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) (2016), which was based on a prior state felony offense. Martinez-Contreras argues that the enhancement was erroneously applied because, before his first removal order, he received only a probationary term for the state felony offense and that the prison sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation could not be used to assess the § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) enhancement because it was imposed after his first removal order.

*298We review the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. *See United States v. Fernandez,*770 F.3d 340, 342 (5th Cir. 2014). Pursuant to *United States v. Franco-Galvan,*864 F.3d 338, 340-43 (5th Cir. 2017), which issued after Martinez-Contreras was sentenced, application of the § 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) enhancement constitutes error.

The Government has not met its burden of showing harmless error. *See United States v. Martinez-Romero,*817 F.3d 917, 924 (6th Cir. 2016). Although the district court was aware of both sentencing ranges, the court never explained that it would impose the same 48-month prison term either way. *See United States v. Guzman-Rendon,*864 F.3d 409, 411 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. *denied,*2017 WL 4883172, — U.S.-, 138 S.Ct. 524, — L.Ed.2d — (Dec. 4, 2017) (No. 17-6519). Rather, the court used the incorrect range as the starting point for its discussion of the various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warranting deviation from that range. *See Molina-Martinez v. United States,*— U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345, 194 L.Ed.2d 444 (2016). Further, the court’s comments at sentencing do not make clear that its sentencing decision was based on factors independent of the Sentencing Guidelines. *See United States v. Wikkerink,*841 F.3d 327, 338 (5th Cir. 2016).

We VACATE the judgment and REMAND to the district court for resentenc-ing.

*

 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.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 353

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One

Hundred Fifth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 20, 1998

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session

of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Wednesday, October 21, 1998, or Thursday,

4 October 22, 1998, on a motion offered pursuant to this

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the

7 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur8 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, or until

9 a time designated pursuant to section 3 of this resolution;

10 and that when the Senate adjourns on Wednesday, Octo-
2

HCON 353 ATH

1 ber 21, 1998, or Thursday, October 22, 1998, on a motion

2 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma3 jority Leader or his designee, if stand adjourned sine die,

4 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

5 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res6 olution.

7 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority

8 Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

9 the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Lead10 er of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House

11 and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

12 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

13 SEC. 3. During any adjournment of the House pursu14 ant to this concurrent resolution, the Speaker, acting after

15 consultation with the Minority Leader, may notify the

16 Members of the House to reassemble whenever, in his

17 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. After re18 assembling pursuant to this section, when the House ad19 journs on any day on a motion offered pursuant to this

20 section by its Majority Leader or his designee, the House

21 shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section

22 of this concurrent resolution.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. [CASE NO.]2-03-291-CR

[APPELLANT NAME]BOBBY DON BROCK	APPELLANT

	V.

[APPELLEE NAME]THE STATE OF TEXAS	[APPELLEE OR STATE]STATE

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

	FROM THE [COURT]43RD43RD  DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY]PARKER COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Bobby Don Brock v. State

02-03-00291-CR

	Appellant Bobby Don Brock appeals his jury conviction of possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, in an amount of less than one gram. [CR 5]  In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence the arresting officer seized from him on the night of his arrest. [Brief of Appellant at 2]  We need not address the merits of this argument because appellant’s issue has been waived. 

	It is well-settled that when a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence is overruled, the accused need not subsequently object to the admission of the same evidence at trial in order to preserve error.  Gearing v. State, 685 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g), overruled on other grounds by Woods v. State, 956 S.W.2d 33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).  However, when the accused affirmatively asserts during trial that he has “no objection” to the admission of the evidence complained of, he waives any error in the admission of the evidence despite the earlier adverse ruling.  Id.; Dean v. State, 749 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).  

	In this case, defense counsel filed a pre-trial motion to suppress all the evidence seized from appellant on the night of his arrest. [CR 17].  After a hearing, the trial court denied all portions of the motion to suppress regarding the physical evidence and granted the portion of the motion regarding appellant’s oral statement. [CR 28]  During the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, when appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated that he had no objections to the introduction of all the previously complained of physical evidence seized from appellant on the night of his arrest, he waived his right to complain on appeal about its admissibility. [IV RR 40-41, 73]  Therefore, we overrule appellant’s issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.  

							WQSAM J. DAY

							JUSTICE

PANEL Bl:		DAUPHINOT and HOLMAN, JJ.; ANand SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment)..

		DO NOT PUBLISH

		Tex. R. App. P. ] 47.2(b)

delDELIVERED:  December 2331, 2003
## _ - ENERGY ~~

. 

## '11 Via Regulalions.gov July 6, 2015 U.S. Department Of Transportation . Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W 12-140 Washington, DC 20590-0001 Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 11224 Docket No. FAA-2014-0633 Dear Sir or Madam: NextEra Energy, Inc. ("NextEra") hereby requests amendment t0 its Exemption NO. 11224 ("Exemption") issued by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") on Marcli 24, 2015 to authorize operations using the DJI Phantom 3 Professional. NextEra's existing Exemption authorizes operation using the DJI PllantOm 2 VlslOn PlLls, DJI Inspire I(T600), aild DJI S900 when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload, and states that proposed operations of any other aircraft require a new petition Or petition to amend this grant. 1. llescription of nir-ci•aft Vlal:e ancf Z/Ic clel NextEra proposes to add the DJI Pliantom 3 Professioiial to its authorized operations. This craft is small (gross weight Of 1280 Grams, 2. 82 pOLlnds) and llas a max1111L1111 speed Of 16 mis, 31.1knots. The FAA previously approved the use of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional by Flite Video LLC in Exemption 11583, Regulatory Docket FAA -2015-0453, finding that "the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers ol• crew, ratlher than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flamniable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest." NextEra requests that the FAA find that the use of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional is in thc public 111terest in this case for these same reasons. 2. Supporting Materials The following user guide is providecl in Appendix A: [Phantom 3 Professional User Manual, Version 1.2] NextEra will follow the same safety checklists, sUAS operator training, and Otlier Operating conditions that apply t0 the three craft prcviously approved for operatioii. Upoti FAA approval
NextEra Energy, Inc. 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408NextEra Petition for Amendment of Exemption No. 1 1224

July 6, 2015 Page 2 of this Petition for Amendment, NextEra will update its Field Operations Manuals, Checklists, and related documents to include DJI Phantom 3 Professional -speclflc lllfornZatlon
. I hope that you find the above information helpful in processing NextEra's Petition for Amendment. Please feel free to contact nle at 561-694-4486 or mgodwln@nee.com should you need additional information or have any questions. Best regards,

~ 

## t71C) I ~ Mark Godwin IT Master Architect

NextEra Energy, Inc. 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 829 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 829

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, as the ``Army Specialist 
               Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST THOMAS J. WILWERTH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Army Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 4, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 829

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1450 Montauk Highway in Mastic, New York, as the ``Army Specialist 
               Thomas J. Wilwerth Post Office Building''.
```
*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 27, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-20770 Summary Calendar

_____________________ DUFFY & McGOVERN ACCOMMODATION SERVICES, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus QCI MARINE OFFSHORE, LLC, Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division

USDC No. 4:05-CV-2360

_________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * QCI Marine Offshore, LLC (“QCI”) appeals the district court’s order applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel to enjoin QCI’s state court lawsuit against Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Services (“DMAS”). Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. This case is before us for a second time. The facts and procedural history are set forth in our previous opinion. Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Services v. QCI Marine Offshore, Inc . , 448 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 2006). In the first appeal, we considered whether the district court’s order upholding the validity of the forum** QCI also argues that this court erred in its determination

that the Texas state court’s decision denying DMAS collateral estoppel barred the federal courts from considering this argument. “Absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision or a change in the statutory law, we are bound to follow the prior panel’s decision.” United States v. Anderson, 853 F.2d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 1988). This argument is therefore foreclosed. 

### 2 selection clause and dismissing the breach of contract action precluded QCI from pursuing the same claims against DMAS in state court. We concluded that the requirements for collateral estoppel were met as a matter of law, and remanded to the district court for the discretionary determination whether the doctrine could fairly be applied in this case. QCI , 448 F.3d at 831. On remand, the district court concluded that there was no bar to the application of collateral estoppel and enjoined the parties from proceeding in state court. On appeal, QCI argues that fairness considerations preclude the application of collateral estoppel in this case. QCI maintains that DMAS manipulated the judicial system and wasted judicial resources by seeking relief in federal court after attempting to defend its case unsuccessfully in state court. The record makes clear, however, that this course of action was forced by QCI’s attempt to undercut an adverse ruling by the federal court by initiating a second state court lawsuit, rather than pursuing its federal appeal. We find no abuse of discretion. ** The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          20,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,448
<PP&E>                                         238,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 141,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,084,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                         5,691
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,778,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,084,565
<SALES>                                        219,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,916
<CGS>                                           10,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,871,246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,662,011)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
Note: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2007-1203 

VITA ZAHNFABRIK H. RAUTER GMBH & CO. KG, 

VIDENT, and NEIL R. HALL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

David A. Dillard, Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, of Pasadena, California, argued 

for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Brian K. Brookey. 

Brett M. Schuman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of San Francisco, California, 

argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Thomas D. Kohler. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Central District of California 

Judge James V. Selna 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2007-1203 

VITA ZAHNFABRIK H. RAUTER GMBH & CO. KG, 

VIDENT, and NEIL R. HALL, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California 

in CASE NO(S). 04-CV-0729 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, MAYER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED May 16, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly______ 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk