alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-30244

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jesse L. Cage, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:98-CR-194-1

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jesse L. Cage, federal prisoner # 22766-034, appeals the denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He correctly 

argues that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and its commentary are not binding on a 

prisoner’s own motion for compassionate release. See United States v. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30244 Document: 00516530260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
No. 22-30244

2

Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). He contends that his motion 

was supported by the import of Amendment 798 to the Guidelines, his age, 

his time spent in prison, the nature of his offense, his rehabilitative efforts, 

his contention that his most recent disciplinary case was a result of 

circumstances due to COVID-19, and his contention that he poses no danger 

to the community. He has abandoned, by failing to brief, any challenge to the 

district court’s determinations that he should not receive § 3582(c)(1)(A) 

relief based upon his medical conditions or his increased risk for COVID-19. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

We review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). There is no indication that the 

district court impermissibly treated § 1B1.13 as binding. See Shkambi, 993 

F.3d at 392-93. Even if the district court legally erred in its consideration of 

§ 1B1.13, the denial of the motion may be affirmed because the district court’s 

consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors can independently support 

the judgment. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 

2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 

948 F.3d at 693-94.

The district court expressly found that it had the discretion to 

consider Amendment 798 as an extraordinary and compelling reason to 

reduce the sentence. It did not exercise that discretion, however, given its 

other stated reasons for denying the motion. In denying the motion, the 

district court specifically considered Cage’s age, his time in prison, the 

nature of his offense, his rehabilitative efforts, his criminal history, his prison 

disciplinary history, and his available support system upon release. Cage’s 

mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors 

does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. The district 

court’s denial of Cage’s motion for compassionate release is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-30244 Document: 00516530260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2022
Exhibit 10.3
 ENDEAVOUR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
2010 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
 NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 THIS NONSTATUTORY STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT Agreement Company name] Grantee [date] Date of
Grant
 WHEREAS Common Stock
 WHEREAS Plan
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW THEREFORE
 Grant of Nonstatutory Stock Option Option Stock Option number Optioned Shares Option Price exercise price
 Vesting: Time of Exercise




---



##### 



Vesting on Change in Control
 Term; Forfeiture Termination of Employment th
   2




---



##### 



Heir th THIS PROVISION CAN
BE MODIFIED TO PROVIDE FOR VESTING ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN TERMINATIONS SUCH AS DEATH, DISABILITY OR
RETIREMENT. THE TIME FRAME FOR EXERCISING A VESTED OPTION MAY ALSO BE MODIFIED]
 Who May Exercise
 No Fractional Shares
 Manner of Exercise Exercise Date
  3




---



##### 



Nonassignability
 Rights as Stockholder
 Dispute Resolution
 Arbitration
  4




---



##### 



AAA
     Emergency Relief
 5




---



##### 



Grantees Representations
 Grantees Acknowledgments
 Law Governing
 No Right to Continue Service or Employment
 Legal Construction
 Covenants and Agreements as Independent Agreements
 Entire Agreement
 6




---



##### 



The Plan
 Parties Bound
 Modification
 Headings
 Gender and Number
 Independent Legal and Tax Advice
 Notice
  
  Tax Requirements
 7




---



##### 



Tax Withholding
 Share Withholding
 Signature Page Follows
 8




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 COMPANY:
ENDEAVOUR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONBy:Name:Title:GRANTEE:[name]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 666 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2013 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Ms. HANABUSA, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. MOORE, Mr. 

BECERRA, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Ms. MCCOLLUM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 

trust for Indian tribes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) MODIFICATION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

6 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known 

7 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 479), 

8 is amended— 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 666 IH

1 (A) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the 

3 term’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘any recognized Indian 

5 tribe now under Federal jurisdiction’’ and in6 serting ‘‘any federally recognized Indian tribe’’. 

7 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

8 by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if included in 

9 the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the 

10 ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 479), on 

11 the date of the enactment of that Act. 

12 (b) RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF AC13 TIONS.—Any action taken by the Secretary of the Interior 

14 pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known 

15 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’; 25 U.S.C. 461 et 

16 seq.), for any Indian tribe that was federally recognized 

17 on that date of the action is ratified and confirmed, to 

18 the extent such action is subjected to challenge based on 

19 whether the Indian tribe was federally recognized or under 

20 Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 1934, ratified and con21 firmed as fully to all intents and purposes as if the action 

22 had, by prior Act of Congress, been specifically authorized 

23 and directed. 

24 (c) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.— 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 666 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section or 

2 the amendments made by this section shall affect— 

3 (A) the application or effect of any Federal 

4 law other than the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 

5 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), as amended by subsection 

6 (a) of this section; or 

7 (B) any limitation on the authority of the 

8 Secretary of the Interior under any Federal law 

9 or regulation other than the Act of June 18, 

10 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), as so amended. 

11 (2) REFERENCES IN OTHER LAWS.—An express 

12 reference to the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 

13 461 et seq.), contained in any other Federal law 

14 shall be considered to be a reference to that Act as 

15 amended by subsection (a) of this Act. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Krista GLOVER, Appellant, v. Mildred PHILLIPS, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1453

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 11, 2018]

Anne M. Lynch of Anne M. Lynch, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Earl K. Mallory and Charles R. Boning of Mallory Law Group, Jupiter, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Compressors/Engines 

Dehydrators 

Pipelines 

Pneumatics/Controls 

Tanks 

Valves 

Wells 

Other 

PRO Fact Sheet No. 204 

Replace Glycol 

Dehydrator With 

Separators and In-line 

Heaters 

Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs) 

for Reducing Methane Emissions 

Technology/Practice Overview 

Description 

Removing water from the pipeline gas entering the 

distribution system may be necessary to prevent hydrate 

formation in the distribution pipes, especially in cold 

operational environments. The typical method for water 

removal in the natural gas industry is glycol dehydration. 

As an alternative to conventional glycol dehydration, partners 

have reported installing separators and in-line heaters. 

Pipeline gas is expanded and auto-refrigerated in a cyclone 

separator to enhance water condensation and separation. 

The gas is then reheated to restore the gas to a dew point 

well below any conditions in the distribution system. Since 

no glycol is used to remove water from gas, the methane emissions from a glycol dehydrator are avoided. 

Operating Requirements 

Electrical resistance in-line heaters require an electrical power supply. Upstream pressure must be sufficient for expansion 

chilling and still meet distribution requirements. 

Applicability 

This technology applies to transmission and distribution systems that operate in cold climates. 

Methane Emissions Reductions 

The methane savings are the avoided emissions from conventional glycol dehydration operations. Based on industry 

rules-of-thumb, 3 scf of gas are required for each gallon of glycol circulated in a conventional dehydrator unit, and 3 gallons 

of glycol are needed per pound of water removed. Therefore, with no other controls, 9 scf of methane are emitted per 

pound of water removed. One partner reported methane savings of 1,930 Mcf from replacing 14 dehydrators. 

Applicable sector(s): 

Production Processing Transmission and Distribution 

Partners reporting this PRO: Enron Gas Pipeline Group 

Other related PROs: Reduce Glycol Circulation Rates in Dehydrators, Replace Gas Assisted 

Glycol Pumps with Electric Pumps, Replace Glycol Dehydration Units with Methanol Injection 

Methane Savings: 130 Mcf per year 

Costs 

Capital Costs (including installation) 

<$1,000 $1,000 – $10,000 >$10,000 

Operating and Maintenance Costs (annual) 

<$100 $100-$1,000 >$1,000

Payback (Years) 

0–1 1–3 3–10 >10 

Benefits 

Reducing methane emissions was an associated benefit of the project. 
Economic Analysis 

Basis for Costs and Savings 

Methane emissions reductions of 130 Mcf per year apply to dehydrating 10 MMcf per day of gas 

from 7 pounds to 4 pounds of water per MMcf of gas. 

Discussion 

This technology has a good payback. The capital and operational costs shown above are for 

installing and operating separators and in-line heaters. These costs are considerably lower than 

those associated with glycol dehydrators, and result in a quick payout. Methane savings are an 

additional benefit. 

Last updated: September 2004
```
**Exhibit 99.1

                                              CERTIFICATION**

         The  undersigned,  being an officer of U.S.  Bank Trust  National  Association,  as trustee  (the
"Trustee")  of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1 (the "Trust")  hereby makes the  following  certifications
for inclusion as an exhibit to the Trust's  annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December
31, 2006 (the "Annual Report"):

1.       The Trustee is the trustee under the Trust's trust agreement.

2.       Based on my knowledge,  for the period  covered by the Annual  Report,  the Trustee has fulfilled
its obligations under the Trust's trust agreement.

                                                                /s/ Marlene Fahey                 
                                                              Name:   Marlene Fahey
                                                              Title:  Vice President
                                                              Date:   March 28, 2007
```

----
Gary A. STEINBERG, Appellant, v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE/CITY OF TALLAHASSEE RISK MANAGEMENT, Appellees.

No. 1D17-3353

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 23, 2018

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Christopher J. DuBois and Mary E. Cruickshank of DuBois & Cruickshank, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Osterhaus and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
# C_2020343EN.01000901.xml

| 15.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9442 — Elliott/Insight/WorkForce)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 343/05)

On 26 July 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9442. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9442. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Demario WEBSTER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2654

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ryan Stephon Harrison v. The State of Texas

Ap pellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00 093

- C R

Trial court case number: 1617692

Trial court: 177 th District Court of Harris County

The appellant, Ryan Stephon Harrison, has moved for rehearing

. The court hereby DENIES

the appellant’s motion for rehearing.

Justice’s signature: / s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Goodman

, and Countiss

.

Date: January 28 , 20 21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: V.I.M.B.

PETITION OF: H.M.J., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 640 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: N.H.B.

PETITION OF: H.M.J., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 641 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.T.C.B.

PETITION OF: H.M.J., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 642 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Joshua W. COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# --------------.-----

# ..**~** Faulk, Scott (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: Anna Gregorieff <agregorieff@tatitlek.csd.schoolaccess;net> 'I

### ;~/r**c~·** . .-**'""\---~~** 

### .. ,-**.~** Tuesday, April 07, 2015 12:46 PM .·**.~>·J** 

## i :, ".! ·'-' -'. ·!.
--**'""'"·~-,** ........- 

### r.., ""' Faulk, Scott {OST) _: ..:. 

### i ; :;--Lr,r\i**i'~·:• ~.**  

### Subject: Reeve Air Alaska We have been using ·Reeve Air for the past year, 

### we've gotten to know Mike, he is professional, friendly and courteous to the people of our community and 

### very helpful when it comes to freight and hauling people to Anchorage and back to Tatitlek for medical. His service is most welcome and needed in our village, the people of this community have proven that. There are other airlines that come into our village but sometimes their prices are too steep.

Exenia & Anna Gregorieff 325-4002/4003

1
Exhibit 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
-----------------------------------------

I, Mark H. McKinnies, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment #1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of
ADA-ES, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and;

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer 's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: July 25, 2006

/s/ Mark H. McKinnies
-----------------------
Name: Mark H. McKinnies
Title: CFO
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Vincent W. Hesser, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of OneCap (the
"Registrant");

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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: May 16, 2005                    /s/ Vincent W. Hesser
                                      Vincent W. Hesser
                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael D. Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc. (the Company), 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 Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.



|                      |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Durham
|Name:                 |  | Michael D. Durham                    
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | March 27, 2009