alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

          - 36 CFR Parts 223 and 261
          - RIN 0596-AB81

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of Delay of Effective Date.

# SUMMARY:

The Department is delaying the effective date of this rule for an additional 60 days. The Department previously delayed the effective date and sought comment for 30 days ending on March 2, 2009 (74 FR 5107). More time is needed for the Forest Service to properly respond to the comments and to consider any potential changes to the rule. The rule regulates the sustainable free use, commercial harvest, and sale of special forest products and forest botanical products from National Forest System lands.

# DATES:

The effective date for the rule published at 73 FR 79367, December 29, 2008, is delayed until May 29, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Fitzgerald, Forest Service, Forest Management Staff, (202) 205-1753. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

Dated: March 25, 2009.

Ann Bartuska,

Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.

[FR Doc. E9-7075 Filed 3-26-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



In connection with the Annual Report of Lone Star Gold, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), William Alessi, the Company’s Principal Executive and Financial Officer, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2013, that to the best of their knowledge:





| | (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 the Company.





|              |     |                                           | 
|------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------- | 
|July 10, 2019 | By: | */s/ William Alessi*                      | 
|              |     | William Alessi                            | 
|              |     | Principal Executive and Financial Officer |
Jeremy TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1836

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-21-000]


Enbridge Pipelines (Louisiana Intrastate) LLC; Notice of 
Compliance Filing

March 26, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 16, 2009, Enbridge Pipelines (Louisiana 
Intrastate) LLC filed its annual revision of the fuel percentage on its 
system pursuant to section 3.2 of its Statement of Operating 
Conditions. Louisiana Intrastate proposes to charge 0.79 percent for 
fuel and requests an effective date of April 1, 2009.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated 
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or 
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve 
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73353621303c1d1f1a1d16200603031c010733151601105d141c05"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03454651404c6d6f6a6d66507673736c717743656671602d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, April 8, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-7343 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Elmer Celoza MAIGUE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-70883, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 12, 2004.

Hiram W. Kwan, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Elmer Celoza Maigue, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, William Campbell Erb, Jr., Attorney, Mark C. Walters, Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Elmer Celoza Maigue, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review *139of the Board *of*Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) January 28, 2003 denial of his motion to reopen to pursue adjustment of status. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *DeMartinez v. Ashcroft,*363 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir.2004). We deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.

Because Maigue failed to address how the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, he has waived any challenge to this decision, and we deny the petition for review. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).

Furthermore, we lack jurisdiction to review Maigue’s contentions regarding the BIA’s September 10, 2002 decision affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, because Maigue did not file a timely petition for review from that decision. *See id.*at 1258; *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). We also lack jurisdiction to review Maigue’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not present this claim to the BIA. *See OntiverosLopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (“We ... require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, and DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Adrian ADSIDE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SERVED: JUNE 4, 2014 

.~ ~ - -.-

--

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC __..,· ' ·, - ~ . --: I ~ •. , 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MULTI-AERO, INC. 

Respondent 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0317 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT AND DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2013CE030082) was forwarded to 

the Office of Hearings on May 29,2014, and has been assigned to the undersigned. On June 2, 

2014, Respondent's Counsel submitted a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement. 

Respondent withdrew its request for hearing, and moved to terminate the proceeding with 

prejudice. Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, this proceeding is dismissed with 

prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or fmal 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Chief Administrative L " 

Attachment - Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2014-0317 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

· The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

David B. Kessler, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

901 Locust Street, Room 506 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2641 

FAX: 816-329-3771 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-320) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
STATE EX REL. Jerry Anthony BRANDON a/k/a Jerry L. Brandon v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2016-KH-1889

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 9, 2018

Denied; moot.
#### In the Matter of Michael Sangermano, Appellant, v Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Nassau County, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 609]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent, *inter alia, to*reinstate the petitioner to the position of Assistant Head Custodian, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered February 24, 2000, which, *inter alia,*granted that branch of the respondent’s motion which was to dismiss the proceeding as time-barred, and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly held that the proceeding was untimely because it was commenced more than four months after the effective date of the petitioner’s resignation *(see,*CPLR 217; *Matter of Edmead v McGuire,*67 NY2d 714; *Matter of Ward v Bennett,*79 NY2d 394; *Matter of Lion Constr. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Labor,*266 AD2d 394: *Matter of Hanslmaier v Wehr,*199 AD2d 754; *Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*181 AD2d 1011; *Matter of Smith v Kunkel,*152 AD2d 893; *Matter of Edelman v Axelrod,*111 AD2d 468; *Haberbush v Christensen,*103 AD2d 996).

In light of our determination, we need not address the petitioner’s remaining contentions. Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
PACKAGING SYSTEMS AND ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent, v. OPERATIONAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Appellants.

WD 82077

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: June 28, 2019

Matthew W. Geary, Kansas City, for Respondent.

Anthony L. Gosserand, Kansas City, for Appellants.

Before Division One: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

*865Operational Solutions appeals the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court overruling its motion to vacate/quash a foreign judgment. It complains on appeal that the New Jersey court should not have entered the judgment at issue because it did not have personal jurisdiction over Operational Solutions. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10812

Summary Calendar

 

SHERMAN HARVEY MERRITT, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARL R. GREEN, Captain,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-154

- - - - - - - - - -

February 26, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Sherman Harvey Merritt, Jr., Texas Prisoner No. 764054,

appeals the district court’s order dismissing his case for failure

to pay filing fees. The district court did not err in dismissing

Merritt’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

AFFIRMED.
Danny Lewis SMITH v. STATE

CR-15-1420

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* 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. 02-50974 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODRIGO ACOSTA-ESQUIVEL, also known as Luis Huerta, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-947-ALL-PRM

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rodrigo Acosta-Esquivel appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Acosta-Esquivel contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Acosta-Esquivel maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simpleNo. 02-50974 -2- reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Acosta-Esquivel acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Statements of Income filed as part of the report on Form 10-QSB and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such report on Form 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         799,222
<SECURITIES>                                 3,153,456
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,184,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,724
<INVENTORY>                                  1,014,975
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,379,180
<PP&E>                                         480,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,806,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          794,565
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,859
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,007,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,011,866
<SALES>                                      2,205,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,258,892
<CGS>                                        1,628,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  726,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (96,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (98,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (98,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. JORGE CRUZ-VIZCARRA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-30346 D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00043-EJL-2
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 4, 2014 ** Portland, Oregon Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Notwithstanding his waiver of his right to appeal, Cruz-Vizcarra attempts to appeal his sentence of 322 months imposed pursuant to his plea of guilty. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts involving controlled substances: possession of 

# FILED
MAR 06 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Cruz-Vizcarra alleges that, during his Rule 11 guilty-plea colloquy, the district court failed “to accurately inform [him], or determine that he understood, the [applicable] mandatory mi nimum sentence” he was facing. Thus, he says, his plea colloquy was fatally defective, and th erefore so were his plea and appellate waiver. Cruz-Vizcarra did not object to this alle ged lapse. Thus, we review for plain error. United States v. Monzon , 429 F.3d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir. 2005). Even if we were to conclude that th e court’s language (1) was error and, (2) that the error was plain, we conclude ne vertheless that it did not (1) affect CruzVizcarra’s substantive rights, or (2) serious ly affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. SeeUnited States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). The government’s evidence against Cruz -Vizcarra was undeniably sufficient to establish his guilt of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty. Before he entered his plea, he had been informed on multip le occasions of th e mandatory minimums he faced, including by the magistrate judge at his arraignment on the indictment. His plea agreement, which he acknowledged and his attorney signed, advised him
-2-that he would serve not less than ten year s on Count 5, and not less than five years on Count 6. Then, those statutory minimu ms appeared in writing once again in his PSR, which did not cause him to attempt to withdraw his plea. At sentencing, his own lawyer acknowledged in Cruz-Vizcarra ’s presence the applicable statutory minimums. Accordingly, we reject Cruz-Vi zcarra’s plea-colloquy-related issues. Because we conclude that Cruz-Vizcarra ’s plea-related issues have no merit, we also conclude that his waiver of his right to appeal was valid. Because the rest of his sentencing issues fall outside of his limited reservation of appellate rights, those issues are not properly before us. AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

-3-
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________ 97-3110

_________ Eugene Wallace Perry, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas Randy Morgan, Warden, Tucker * Maximum Security Unit; * K.L. Wade, Tucker Mail Room * Supervisor; Sam Heuer; John * Doe; Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of * Corrections, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 5, 1997 Filed: August 5, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM Thi s matter comes before the court on appellant’s notice o f appea l from the district court’s order of July 31, 1997, and o n appellant’s motion for stay of execution of a sentence of death
. Thecourt has carefully considered the original file of th e district court and appellant’s motion and supporting documen ts, and it is hereby ordered that the motion for a stay of execution i s denied. It is further ordered that the district court’s July 31, 1997 order dismissing appellant’s complaint and denying his request fora temporary restraining order and declaratory judgment i ssummarily affirmed. See Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.