alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 30, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40687 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. JOSE ALEXANDER ROMERO RODRIGUEZ,also known as Carlos Garcia Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-426-ALL

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court previously affirmed the sentence imposed following Jose Alexander Romero Rodriguez’s resentencing. United States v. Rodriguez , No. 04-40687 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker

.No.04-40687 -2- Rodriguez argues that the district court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines scheme. He contends that the district court’s error is not subject to plain error review because it is structural. He also asserts, based on the nature of the error, that prejudice should be presumed. Rodriguez concedes that his structural error and presumed prejudice arguments are foreclosed and raises them simply to preserve further review. See United States v. Malveaux , 411 F.3d 558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). Because Rodriguez did not preserve his arguments before the district court, plain error review applies. See United States v.
Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). To establish plain error under Mares , Rodriguez must demonstrate that the district court would have reached a significantly different result had he been sentenced under advisory guidelines. See Mares , 402 F.3d at 521. As Rodriguez concedes, he cannot make this showing. Booker does not affect our prior holding that AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), has not been overruled. Accordingly, the we REINSTATE our prior decision and judgment affirming the district court.
#### In the Matter of Betty Floyd, Appellant, v Glenn Gardens Associates et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 27, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
2017-0314.

#### State v. Hull.

Lake App. No. 2016-L-036, 2017-Ohio-157.
Presidential Documents

33833

Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 119

Monday, June 22, 1998

Title 3—

The President

Proclamation 7106 of June 17, 1998

Father’s Day, 1998

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Fathers hold us close and lift us up in so many ways throughout our

lives. Devoted fathers work day in and day out, not only to help provide

their families with food, clothing, education, and a good home, but also

to give their children the values, guidance, encouragement, and self-esteem

to make the most of their lives. With careful planning and many quiet

sacrifices, fathers seek to give their children the freedom to dream and

the opportunity to make those dreams a reality. Across our Nation, at piano

recitals and basketball games, at science fairs and high school graduations,

proud fathers rejoice at the achievements of their sons and daughters.

In today’s complex and changing society, fathers have taken on new roles

and additional responsibilities within their homes, balancing the varied

demands of work and family. They are nurturers as well as providers,

confidants and best friends as well as heroes and role models. They teach

their children how to read, how to drive, and how to live. And, like generations of fathers who came before them, they build a strong foundation

of love that enables their sons and daughters to stand taller, see farther,

and reach higher. On Father’s Day, let us thank the biological fathers, stepfathers, foster fathers, and adoptive fathers across America whose love graces

their children’s lives and whose character strengthens our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, WILLIAM J. CLINTON, President of the United States

of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved

April 24, 1972 (36 U.S.C. 142a), do hereby proclaim Sunday, June 21,

1998, as Father’s Day. I invite the States, communities across the country,

and all the citizens of the United States to observe this day with appropriate

ceremonies and activities that demonstrate our deep appreciation and abiding

love for our fathers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth

day of June, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-eight,

and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred

[FR Doc. 98–16696

Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

and twenty-second.

œ–
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

let.ta of ?abrmrt 

Departmat 011 th 

ue fo tul ltt4 r o hed 

o r la ten4 oo ? nt a h a 

0 eta had aorre6- 

&rid. 432 of tkr Panel Code, prortdirr 

“110 otfloor ot Qhlr strtr or My offloer 

of any 4irtrlot eorrnt 

dirtriot, or o&r maa 

1 ) l lOJ, graoioot, rohool 

01~81 au dirlrlon of thir 
a 

WUlr brothor@-la-law are rrlrtrd rithla thr 

tirrt dylrro b attinlty I?. ?, 8, RI 00, ‘1. Wortos, # App. 

0. 0. See. 55) i md hrnor wlthla tk. prohlbitad dwwoi 

relationrbi) art forth in thr Artlol* 432 of tbr Panal 0040) 

it will br noted that r\trh Artirla a pl1.1 anl~, "whoa the 

ralrrt, few, or oonprnrrtloa of ma 4 appointee ir to bo 

paid for, Ilrratly ot InUreoll~, out of OF fxm pub116 tudr 

oh f8rr oi offbe of a&y kind or Oharrota? wh@t8O@V~*. 

Slaoo thhr eamrrl lawa provi$r a0 eompwratlon dlroot 0t 

lndlYaO%, for taaapmm rohool 4lsttlrt tmu~“r, it 10 

our viw that Artiole 432 of tha W&al Oede 18 imp lleablo 

to thr lnrtral, 08s.r eoayrr splQloQ# 80, o-7771 1 0. o-1822 

of thlr Da~r*aut. 

Yhnrfare thle lo to a4vlre. that in our epialm 

tha trurteor l f thr I& Xadrpendurt 80-1 DlrtrlOt rrY 

le@l fill tbhr vaoanbf l X&RtiQ# 011 t&8 ~0~6 by WPohtinll 

l brot I; or-in-tar ot O&O of the %ru#teOa. 

ve?y truly your8 

mro~18'~~Qll;t O? ypd
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 Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul M. Anderson, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of Duke Energy, 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 Duke Energy.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL M. ANDERSON                                                          
|Paul M. Anderson Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer March 16, 2005
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00431-CV

Jim R. LONG, individually and as general partner of Long Properties LTD.,

and R.L. Owens,

Appellants

v.

Jerlean Gohmert THEIS and Kenneth Theis,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-10-48435-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them. 

SIGNED August 21, 2013.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
# C_2014052EN.01005401.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/54

---

Action brought on 18 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-123/13)

2014/C 52/106

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Joassart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to terminate, with immediate effect, the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision to dismiss the applicant, notified by letter of 7 March 2013; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to dismiss the applicant, notified by letter of 7 March 2013;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**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 Quarterly Report ofAdvanstar, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Krakoff, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

 

(1)               The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 
| By:    | /s/ Robert L. Krakoff    |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert L.  Krakoff       |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | Date: May 13, 2003       |

 

 

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

 

This certification is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification shall not to bedeemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section. This certification does not constitute a part of Registrant’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification and to which itis an exhibit.

 

----
SCPR-22-0000574 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
IN RE PATRICIA C. ABURANO, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the practice law in the State of Hawai # i , filed by attorney Patricia C. Aburano, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), but to retain the paper license as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude that Petitioner Aburano has fully complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is granted. Petitioner Aburano may retain the paper license as a
memento. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-22-0000574 13-OCT-2022 09:56 AM Dkt. 7 OGPrecord requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name of Petitioner Aburano, attorney number 3598, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai # i , effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai# i, October 13, 2022. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
Exhibit
32.1








The
following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporation’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and is not filed as
provided in Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.





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 on Form 10-K of Dynamics Research Corporation,
a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:





(1) the
Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Date:  March
      16, 2010
            /s/
      James P. ReganPresident,
      Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
# Aerospace Energy contributes to Atlas V launch

/ Published July 1, 2016
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Florida, 
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Florida – Defense Logistics Agency Aerospace Energy personnel partnered with the Navy, Air Force and other organizations to provide the way for the 20-story tall Atlas V rocket launch at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, June 24.The United Launch Alliance Atlas V Rocket deployed the Navy’s Mobile User Objective System-5 satellite. MUOS-5 is the last in a five-satellite constellation that will provide military forces with improved and assured communications worldwide. The communications coverage for military forces now extends further toward the North and South poles than ever before.“[It was] another successful launch supported by Aerospace Energy over just the past few weeks,” said Douglas Smith, Aerospace Energy director. “Providing support to a launch that establishes a communication network for the military is a major [accomplishment,] so we all feel proud in the support we provided both to the rocket that launched the satellite, as well as to the satellite itself, which will position itself via Aerospace Energy provided products.”Military communications are of utmost importance, and this satellite will provide improved support to the warfighter, he said.The engine powering the Atlas booster for this mission burned rocket propellant-1 or highly purified kerosene and liquid oxygen, both products supported to the U.S. military and commercial space companies from the DLA Energy Aerospace office in San Antonio.Once in orbit, the payload then depends on high purity hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide to maneuver and control the payloads, two more additional Aerospace Energy-managed products supporting the military and those commercial space launch companies covered by the Commercial Space Launch Act.DLA Energy has long term contracts in place to support both the RP-1, used on the Atlas V Rocket, as well as for the high purity hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, on the satellite. Containers, transportation, storage, inventory management, contract administration all of which are managed out of our San Antonio office.“Logistical support to the military is why we are here, and my staff does an amazing job, continuing to support the warfighter,” Smith said.This launch is the second national security payload from Cape Canaveral in just two weeks with the previous Delta IV launch, the world’s most powerful rocket, also being supported by DLA Energy Aerospace products.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Geligas, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 822]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 5, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in *369the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence on the criminal sale conviction to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included screening potential customers (see *People v Bello,*92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Defendant failed to preserve his claims concerning police testimony as to the roles of participants in street-level narcotics sales (see *People v Harris,*98 NY2d 452, 492 [2002]; *People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them (see *People v Brown,*97 NY2d 500, 506-507 [2002]).

We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT ALFRED PETRILL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 55 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of July, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# Red River MRAP team receives Global Distribution Excellence award

/ Published June 16, 2015
RED RIVER, Texas, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’ Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Team has been awarded the Global Distribution Excellence: DLA Distribution Team Performance of the Year in the medium category for 2014. 
“Each of the team’s 31 members worked in concert to receive, store and ship key MRAP parts to support Red River Army Depot’s production line, Army field units and a wide variety of other customers worldwide,” said deputy commander Frank Holobinko. 

Together, the team manages over 3,400 line items worth over $800 million. Over the course of the past year, they have inducted over 3,800 new receipts into MRAP inventory, distributing material to 16 warehouses in finite locations and ensuring the correct placards/markings are donned for quick picks.

In 2014, the team picked and processed more than 3,300 issue requests to worldwide customers. This included the coordinated delivery of 360 Materiel Release Orders with over 11,000 pieces to the RRAD reset line and local deliveries and sequenced loads for easy deliveries to shops.

The team also completed builds and disassembly of kits. They constructed seven MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle Authorized Stockage List kits consisting of 26 lines of material, assembled and stored 16 M-ATV Shop Stock Sets consisting of 32 lines, and disassembled 23 M-ATV kits with 57 line items, ensuring items were labeled and inducted for individual issue.

Additionally, members configured model air pallets for plane specifications, simplifying the process and ensuring acceptance at the final destination. In total, they assembled 63 air pallets in specific configurations for priority shipments. They also assisted in a clean sweep of dormant material, right-sizing inventory levels for future programs.

“This team’s organization and execution of processes greatly impacted DLA Distribution Red River’s accomplishments in operations and global mission support to our customers worldwide,” said Holobinko.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 10 , 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00330

- CV

J. A. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
BEFORE C H IEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the jud g ment signed by the tr i a l court on May 10, 2023

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

ap p ella nt is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.