alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-20539 Summary Calendar

____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Alfredo Reybollar-Sotomayor, Defendant—Appellant

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CR-206-1

______________________________ Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Alfredo Reybollar-Sotomayor appeals his sentence for illegal reentry. He argues that the district court e rred by imposing the conditions of supervised release related to substanc e abuse because there was no evidence that he actually uses controlle d substances, much less abuses them.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 31, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20539 Document: 00516770397 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2023No. 22-20539

2 Although Reybollar-Sotomayor asserts that our review is for abuse of discretion, defense counsel’s arguments in support of a downward departure at sentencing would not have put the di strict court on notice that he was challenging the conditions of supervised release re lated to substance abuse. See United States v. Neal , 578 F. 3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2009). Therefore, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Dean , 940 F.3d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 2019). To establish plain error, Reybollar- Sotomayor must show an error that was clear or obvious and that af fects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public repu tation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Even if we assume fo r the sake of argument that the district court erred and that the error was clear or obvious, Reybollar-Sotomayor has not attempted to show that the error affect s his substantial rights or that it warrants the exercise of our discretion. See United States v. AndaverdeTinoco , 741 F.3d 509, 523 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Cacino-Trinidad , 710 F.3d 601, 606 (5th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED

. Case: 22-20539 Document: 00516770397 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2023
Harold Roderick HARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1045

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 28, 2018 Rehearing Denied September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Theodore GRAYBILL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of habeas corpus is denied.
Swanson. Brian (OST) 

:"·.; ~J~)r 

From: ! l.")""'r" 

Diane Miller <dickdiane.miller@gmail.com>'\: .. I 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Sunday, August 12, 2012 3:26 PM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) Z:i'? 1 3 

SkyWest 

~): 1 n .... ~ u 

I vote to have SkyWest as our connecting airline. 

Diane Miller 

1
# C_2020006EN.01000301.xml

| 10.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/3

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(M.9559 — Telefónica/Prosegur/Prosegur Alarmas España)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 6/03)

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004

On 27 November 2019, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘Merger Regulation’).

On 20 December 2019, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.

---

(1)  Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union C 412, 9.12.2019, p. 21.

---
STATE EX REL. Jimmie DECUIR v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1324

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Relator's convictions and sentences became final in 2013, and he does not provide a copy of the application for post-conviction relief filed in the district court. He fails to offer proof that his application was timely filed in the district court or that an exception to the time limitation applies.

*1279La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
From: Francisco Claudio/R2/USEPA/US 

 

 To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 06/21/2011 01:00 PM 

 

 Subject: Battery Recycling as 2005 photos 

 

Francisco Claudio 

Environmental Engineer 

Multimedia Permits and Compliance Branch 

(787)-977-5841 

Fax- (787)-289-7104 

AWL-(Tuesday/Thursday Afternoon)-(787)-524-0933(See attached file: 

Battery Recycling Entrance-2005.pptx) 
Battery Recycling Entrance-2005
2003 Battery Recycling Corp. configuration

No. 1

Furnace baghouse
Furnace molten lead unloaded

Furnace Furnace in operation

Furnace control panel
Battery shredder area

Baghouse stack

Furnace

Kettles 

stacks
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 Justice
 On December 5, 2024, the Department of Justice approved a proposed Settlement Agreement among the United States, State of California, and settling defendant United Molasses, Inc. under the Oil Pollution Act, related to the Port of Richmond Terminal 4 site in Richmond, California. The Settlement Agreement requires the settling defendant to pay $650,000.00 to resolve a claim for damages for injuries to natural resources from alleged oil discharges from the site. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to Settlement Agreement among the United States, State of California, and United Molasses, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-12847. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the Settlement Agreement may be examined at and downloaded from this Justice Department website: 
                    *https://www.justice.gov/​enrd/​consent-decrees.*
                     If you require assistance accessing the Consent Decree you may request assistance by email or by mail to the addresses provided above for submitting comments. Scott Bauer, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2024-29046 Filed 12-10-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
Liza Monica TEUTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Cristen Eric HANKINS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charles E. TATE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HANDYMAN HOME REPAIR, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0937

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Terrance Lamont JOHNSON aka - Terrance L. Johnson

NO. 2018-KH-1016

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Untimely filed pursuant to La.S.Ct.R. X § 5.
Angus MCCANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-870

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the quarterly  report of Pacific Fuel Cell Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal  quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),  we, George Suzuki,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Ken Inouye, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to the best of our 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 operations
          of the Company.



Dated:  August 19, 2004                  s/George Suzuki
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         George Suzuki, Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  August 19, 2004                  s/Ken Inouye
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Ken Inouye, Chief Financial Officer
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  I, Marlen L. Roepke , certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of KNW Networks, Inc. ;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
  4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
  6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  
 Dated: August 14, 2003
 by
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Marlen L. Roepke
 Marlen L. Roepke
 Officer/Director
James KING, Appellant, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
FaxBack # 11719

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

JANUARY 7, 1993

Mr. David S. Parsons

Hazardous Waste Management Section

Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource.

101 South Webster Street, Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

Dear Mr. Parsons:

This is in response to your November 18, 1992 letter requesting confirmation of information 

obtained from the RCRA/Superfund Hotline regarding the hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity. 

Specifically, you were interested in the types of wastes for which the pH limits and the steel corrosion 

tests apply.

The information provided by the hotline is consistent with current EPA policy. Non-aqueous 

liquids need only be tested using the steel corrosion test, whereas aqueous liquids are subject to both 

the steel corrosion test and the pH limits. Likewise, aqueous non-liquids (e.g., gels) need only be 

evaluated for pH. Further, for purposes of the corrosivity definition, an “aqueous”waste is one that is 

amenable to pH measurement.

Should you have any further questions regarding this issue, or need any further clarification, 

please feel free to contact Ms. Gail Hansen, Chief of the Methods Section, at (202) 260-4761.

Sincerely,

David Bussard, Director

Characterization and 

Assessment Division
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE:

Ava Celeste Benjamin, Case no. 22-11124-AJC

Chapter 13 Case

 Debtor(s). /

INNOVATE LOAN SERVICING’S OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION

Innovate Loan Servicing (“Creditor”) objects to the 

confirmation of debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan as follows:

1. On February 11, 2022, debtor filed for relief under 

Chapter 13 the Bankruptcy Code. 

2. On January 3, 2018, debtor executed a contract 

pertaining to the purchase of a 2012 NISSAN ALTIMA SEDAN 4D S 

2.5L I4, VIN 1N4AL2AP0CN463868. Copies of the contract & proof 

of title are attached to Creditor’s Proof of Claim No. 1-1.

3. The Plan should not be confirmed under 11 U.S.C. 

section 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) because the value, of the effective 

date of the Plan, of property to be distributed under the Plan 

to Creditor on account of its claim is less than the allowed 

amount of Creditor’s secured claim. The Plan appears to

understate the value of the vehicle. The replacement (retail) 

value of the vehicle is $7,325.00.

4. The payoff on the account, as of February 11, 2022, is 

$5,905.22 (POC #1-1).

5. Debtor understates the interest rate. Creditor is 

entitled to the Till rate of 5.25%. 

6. Creditor requires updated proof of collision and 

comprehensive insurance.

7. Creditor objects to any portion of its claim being 

Case 22-11124-AJC Doc 10 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 2
2

disallowed and stricken.

WHEREFORE, Creditor respectfully requests that the 

confirmation of debtor’s Plan be denied.

I hereby certify that I am admitted to the bar of the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance 

with the additional qualifications to practice in this Court set forth in 

Local Rule 2090-1(A).

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 15, 2022, copies of the 

foregoing were transmitted via ECF to Office of the US Trustee, 

Nancy K. Neidich, Trustee, Jose A Blanco, Esq., attorney for 

debtor, and mailed to Ava Celeste Benjamin, debtor, 2246 NW 61st 

Street, Miami, FL 33142-7829.

GERARD M. KOURI, JR., P.A.

Attorneys for Ford Motor Credit Company LLC

5311 King Arthur Ave, Davie, FL 33331

Tel (954) 862-1731; Fax (954) 862-1732

/s/ Gerard M. Kouri, Jr.

By:___________________________

 GERARD M. KOURI, JR., ESQ.

 FBN 375969

Case 22-11124-AJC Doc 10 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


1) SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of EchoMetrix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Erica Zalbert, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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





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





Date:  July
      28, 2010
              /s/
      Erica ZalbertErica
      ZalbertChief
      Financial Officer





The
foregoing certification accompanied the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A filing
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350.  It is being reproduced herein for
information only.  It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.  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.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

No. 13-291 C 

Filed: April 11, 2016 

************************************* 

*

JAY HYMAS, *

d/b/a DOSMEN FARMS, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant. *

*

************************************* 

ORDER

Pursuant to the April 6, 2016 mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, the permanent injunction is dissolved. This case is transferred to the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Washington, as requested by Plaintiff’s April 7, 2016 Motion 

to Transfer (ECF No. 54). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this is a “disposition consistent with the 

[mandate].” See Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also id. at

1330 n.10 (“Because the Claims Court does not possess jurisdiction . . . we need not address its

findings that the Service violated various federal procurement laws and the APA [Administrative 

Procedures Act.]”).

Accordingly, the Government’s April 7, 2016 Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 56) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court will transfer the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden 

SUSAN G. BRADEN

Judge
Kathy CURRY, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3471

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony BAUMAN

NO. 2018-KH-0332

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Cave Climates

Filters

              - science_faqs(1)
              - science_science(7)
              - products_data(3)
              - products_publications(20)
              - multimedia_audio(6)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_image(11)
              - multimedia_image-141771(7)
              - multimedia_image-141772(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(6)
              - multimedia_video-149194(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

## By Year

B-roll        March 28, 2018        Getting Down with USGS Science!
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Vikram Jog, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Fluidigm Corporation; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 27, 2016 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Vikram Jog         
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Vikram Jog             
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer