alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41546

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ISMAEL OROZCO-VAZQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CR-133-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Ismael Orozco-Vazquez appeals his conditional guilty plea 

conviction of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine for which 

he was sentenced to 27 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised 

release. 

In reviewing a district court’s suppression ruling, we review factual 

findings for clear error and questions of law de novo. United States v. Jaime, 

 

* 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

November 22, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41546 Document: 00514246822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2017
No. 16-41546

2

473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous so 

long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole. United States v. 

McKinnon, 681 F.3d 203, 207 (5th Cir. 2012). Facts are construed in the light 

most favorable to the Government as the prevailing party on the motion to 

suppress. United States v. Macias, 658 F.3d 509, 517 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The district court did not clearly err in denying Orozco-Vazquez’s motion 

to suppress. See Jaime, 473 F.3d at 181. Orozco-Vazquez’s detention in the 

primary inspection lane was within the permissible duration of an immigration 

checkpoint stop. See United States v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425, 431-35 

(5th Cir. 2001).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-41546 Document: 00514246822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2017
Exhibit 13.1

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 periodic report of Asia Pacific Wire & Cable Corporation Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Yuan Chun Tang, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date:
        November 5, 2007
        
        /s/ Yuan Chun TangYuan Chun TangChief Executive Officer






---
No. 09-1420.

#### Calvin Allen, Petitioner v. Missouri ex rel. Chris Koster, Attorney General of Missouri.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 122,

178 L. Ed. 2d 32,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6477,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, denied.

Same case below, 298 S.W.3d 139.
No. 09-10550.

#### Waymond Thomas, Petitioner v. Robert Ayers, Jr., Warden.

562 U.S. 846, 131 S. Ct. 88,

178 L. Ed. 2d 56,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5978.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Fotheringham v Riversource Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.

4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1519

denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065666
<NAME> MICHIGAN RIVET CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         547,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,046,053
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,271,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,685,800
<PP&E>                                      25,653,515
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,054,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,289,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,586,901
<BONDS>                                      2,064,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,903,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,289,339
<SALES>                                     32,515,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,515,181
<CGS>                                       28,014,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,014,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,598,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,680,538
<INCOME-TAX>                                   571,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,109,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,109,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
        

</TABLE>
----

----

|   | (1) | 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 14, 2012 |   |                                         |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                 | By:    | /S / JOSEPH GASPAR                           |
|                 |   | Joseph Gaspar                                |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer                 |
|                 |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----

----
DLA 54th Annual Employee Recognition Ceremony recognizes DLA Distribution employees
 
  By  DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  The Defense Logistics Agency premiered the 54th Annual Employee Awards Ceremony video March 10. This annual event from DLA Headquarters recognizes award recipients from around the world and throughout the agency. DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic said this year’s nominees stood out for providing extraordinary customer service, solving tough problems, improving efficiency and saving taxpayer money. Fourteen DLA Distribution and DLA Installation Management Susquehanna and San Joaquin employees and teams were recognized.  
 **Award Winner**
   **Award Category**
   
   **Organization**Jennifer Ruiz
   Top 10
   Category A
   DLA Distribution San Joaquin, CaliforniaShawn Fuentes
   Leader of the Year
   Level 1
   DDCTDDNV COVID-19
   Pandemic Action Response Team
   Team Awards
   Small
   DLA Distribution Norfolk, VirginiaDDSP COVID Support Team
   Team Awards
   Medium
   DLA Distribution Susquehanna, PennsylvaniaLSCS Michael Ruputz, USN
   Joint Reserve Force Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year
   
   DLA Distribution J9SMSG, Titus Serrell, USN
   DLA Senior Non-Commissioned Officer of the Year
   
   DLA Distribution Pearl Harbor, HawaiiSusquehanna Child and Youth Program
   Family Morale, Welfare and Recreation Facility/Program Excellence
   
   DLA Installation Management at SusquehannaLead Dispatcher Jack Deitrich II
   DLA Emergency Communication Center Dispatcher of the Year
   
   DLA Installation Management at SusquehannaMarcus Palamara
   DLA Junior Security Professional of the Year
   
   DLA Distribution San DiegoJada Weaver
   Acquisition Workforce Individual Achievement
   
   DLA DistributionOfficer Chadrick Keeney
   DLA Police Officer of the Year
   
   DLA Distribution San JoaquinOfficer Cynthia Burke
   DLA Supervisory Police Officer of the Year
   
   DLA Installation Management at San JoaquinSan Joaquin DLA Police
   Outstanding Police Activity of the Year
   
   DLA Installation Management at San Joaquin
August 3, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KENNETH RYAN GRIMET, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00243-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
2017-1130.

#### State v. Rodriquez.

Defiance App. No. 4-16-16, 2017-Ohio-1318. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., dissents.
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

JUN 18 1g97

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

FEDERAL RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY CODE

On May 2, 1997, the Department of Energy (Department) published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, Public Hearing, and Request for Public Comment for the Federal Residential Energy

Efficiency Code (62 Fed. Reg. 24164). The Department held a public hearing on the proposed

rule on May 5, 1997.

During the course ofthe public hearing it was asked whether the Technical Support Document

(TSD), which is labeled “draft,” is still undergoing changes. The TSD is the technical basis for the

proposed rule as published. However, based on the Department’s review of comments received

on the proposed rule, we may update the TSD for the final rule.

If you have any questions concerning the TSD, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen P. Walder

at (202) 586-9209.

Sincerely, /

Michael J. McCabe Director /

Office ofCodes and Standards ,

Office of Building Technologies, State

and Community Programs

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
2017-0399.

#### May v. Dir., Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

In Mandamus. On S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.04 determination. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
www.house.gov/green 

Congressman Gene Green 

29th District of Texas 

DC Office: 

2470 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 205 I 5 

(202) 225-1688 tel 

(202) 225-9903 fax 

District Offices: 

256 N. Sam Houston Pkwy. E. 

Suite 29 

Houston, TX 77060 

(28 I) 999-5879 tel 

(281) 999-5716 fax 

I I 8 I I 1-1 0 East 

Suite 430 

Houston, TX 77029 

(713) 330-0761 tel 

(713) 330-0807 fax 

Congressman Gene Green's Statement for the Record 

EPA Public Hearing- Refinery Sector Risk 

August 5, 2014 

My name is Gene Green and I represent Galena Park and the larger 291h Congressional district in the U.S. 

House of Representatives. 

I want to start out today by expressing my disappointment. I have represented this area since I was elected to 

the Texas State Senate in 1985 and I now proudly represent it in the United State Congress. I am concerned 

because the Environmental Protection Agency set this public hearing but I received only six days' notice. 

The Risk and Technology review of the refinery sector and the New Source Performance Standards have significant impacts on my constituents. The industries I represent and our constituents who live near or work in 

these plants may be adversely impacted by this proposed rule. It is my job to ensure their voices are heard 

and rather than contacting our offices and ensuring we are provided ample notice, the EPA paired this hearing with an Environmental Justice Training Workshop and failed to provide adequate notification. 

The proposed rule would significantly change the current requirements for refinery emissions rules by further 

lowering limits, ending Start-up, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) exemptions, and for the first time introducing fenceline monitoring. Many of our refineries currently internally monitor these fencelines. 

The industries in our district have invested billions of dollars to meet the requirements set forth in Refinery 

MACT 1 and MACT 2. For almost a decade, the refinery industry has worked to lower emissions with tangible results. Both the Bush and the Obama Administrations recognized that the public is adequately protected 

under the previous rules. The EPA has openly acknowledged that stricter requirements are not necessary, 

however due to recent consent decrees, the EPA is being forced to act where little or no action may be needed. 

The fenceline communities, the refineries, the other key stakeholders are in regular communication to discuss 

the environmental impacts associated with the operation of these facilities. The EPA asserts that monitoring 

won't reach levels that would necessitate corrective action, so why is the Agency spending taxpayer dollars 

to engage in another rulemaking with little justifiable results. 

This package seems duplicative. The Agency recognizes the new rules impose regulations that already exist 

under previous initiatives. Unfortunately, it would seem all this rule does is limit the operational flexibility 

these refiners possess and duplicate the amount of reporting requirements. 

I would request EPA reconsider the imposition of this package and refocus their efforts on more effective 

environmental rules.
#### Com. v. Wallace

11/17/2015

381 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1126
No. 09-10665.

#### Jose Reyes, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 97,

178 L. Ed. 2d 61,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6010.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (3)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended November 7,
2010 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (4)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: December 22, 2010/s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 21
ACCEPTED

01-15-00141-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/19/2015 11:17:50 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/19/2015 11:17:50 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Stephen Latuso, Respondent, v Salvatore D. Maresca, Jr., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[53 NYS3d 669]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Salvatore D. Maresca, Jr., and Mary Maresca appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastor-essa, J.), dated September 4, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants Salvatore D. Maresca, Jr., and Mary Maresca for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on February 11, 2008, the plaintiff, while operating his motorcycle on Mt. Sinai Coram Road in the Town of Brookhaven, allegedly was injured when he swerved to avoid a garbage pail that had blown onto the road, came into contact with sand on the roadway, lost control of the motorcycle, and struck a tree located on the lawn of the defendants Salvatore D. Maresca, Jr., and Mary Maresca (hereinafter together the defendants). The plaintiff theorized that the wind must have knocked over the defendants’ garbage pail, which was left near the roadway. In 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants and others alleging, inter alia, that the defendants were negligent in placing their garbage can on a berm near the roadway when it was windy. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

*713In support of their motion, the defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the conditions that proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries *(see Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp.,*70 AD3d 631, 631-632 [2010]) and that they had neither actual nor constructive notice of any hazardous condition *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Mere conjecture, suspicion, or speculation is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see Fotiatis v Cambridge Hall Tenants Corp.,*70 AD3d at 632).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Dillon, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
   
  THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY
 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 Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 Company.
   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The Monarch Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
   
   Dated:  August 9, 2012
  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
 President and Chairman of the Board
No. 09-11040.

#### Frank L. Owens, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 860, 131 S. Ct. 134,

178 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6152.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 22 So. 3d 92.
*December 19, 2017*

2017-Ohio-9106.]

2015-2111.

#### Dulay v. Testa.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-2074. On appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for oral argument. Motion denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51203 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PATRICIO CRUZ, also known as Ticho, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-972-1-DB

-------------------- August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Patricio Cruz appeals the sentence he received after this court remanded his case to the district court for a hearing at which the Government and he were instructed to introduce evidence relevant to Cruz’s involvement with marijuana seized on April 13, 1999, in an incident other than the one made the basis of the indictment. Cruz argues that the law of the case doctrine precluded the district court from allowing the Government toNo. 01-51203 -2- introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing because this court had already determined on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the details of the report on which the presentence report relied. The quantity of marijuana in the April 13 transaction was not, however, the law of the case inasmuch as this court remanded the issue to the district court to be determined on remand. United States v. Becerra , 155 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Cruz ignores the mandate rule, which provides that a lower court on remand must implement both the letter and the spirit of the appellate court's mandate and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court. Id. Given that the district court followed the mandate of this court when it allowed the Government to introduce evidence at the sentencing hearing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 09-1529.

#### Sanjuanita Sepulveda, et al., Petitioners v. Allen Family Foods, Inc.

562 U.S. 838, 131 S. Ct. 187,

178 L. Ed. 2d 42,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5967.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

*43Same case below, 591 F.3d 209.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2218

AN ACT

To provide authorization of appropriations for the

for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.Federal Emergency Food and Shelter Program
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2218

AN ACT

To provide authorization of appropriations for the Federal

Emergency Food and Shelter Program for fiscal years

1995 and 1996.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

4 Section 322 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

5 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11352) is amended to read as

6 follows:

7 ‘‘SEC. 322. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

8 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out

9 this title $187,560,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and

10 1996.’’.

Passed the Senate August 10 (legislative day, August 8), 1994.

Attest:

Secretary.
2016-1328.

#### Store Master Funding VI, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1492 and 2015-1493. Case returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07. As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, the court may dismiss the case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.
No. 132,

Original.

#### State of Alabama, et al., Plaintiffs v. State North Carolina.

562 U.S. 820, 131 S. Ct. 378,

178 L. Ed. 2d 14,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6157.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of the Special Master for allowance of fees and reimbursement of expenses granted, and the Special Master is awarded a total of $80,904.16 for the period November 1, 2006, through June 30, 2010, to be paid equally by the parties.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.