alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50240

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSE LUIS GRANADOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(EP-96-CV-237)

November 20, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

José Luis Granados, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Granados contends that his guilty-plea

conviction for using a firearm in connection with a drugtrafficking offense is invalid under Bailey v. United States, 516

U.S. 137 (1995).
2

The government contends that Granados’ Bailey claim is

procedurally barred under United States v. Bousley, 118 S. Ct.

1604, 1610-11(1998). However, because the government did not raise

the procedural bar in the district court, it has been waived. See

United States v. Drobny, 955 F.2d 990, 995 (5th Cir. 1992).

Although Granados contends that he did not actively employ the

firearm and thus did not “use” it within the meaning of Bailey, he

does not contest that he displayed a firearm to an undercover

officer, telling him that he “was ready if something was going to

happen” and that the gun was for protection. Such action is

sufficient to sustain a conviction under the “use” prong of 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). See Bailey, 516 U.S. at 148 (defining use as,

among other things, “brandishing” or “displaying” a firearm).

Granados argues that his act of showing the gun to the

undercover officer was both temporally and physically distant from

the actual drug transaction and his arrest since he stowed the gun

in his car before proceeding to the motel room in which the sale of

drugs was to take place. Thus Granados’ argument is that he did

not use the firearm “during and in relation to” the predicate drug

offenses as is required under § 924(c). This argument fails to

persuade. The record reflects that Granados brought the gun with

him for the purpose of facilitating his possession of the marijuana

and the drug conspiracy. See United States v. Polk, 118 F.3d 286,

293 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 456 (1997); see also

United States v. Tolliver, 116 F.3d 120, 124-26 (5th Cir. 1997).

Thus he used the gun “during and in relation to” the predicate
3

offenses.

The district court’s denial of Granados’ § 2255 motion is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
Christina BECK v. Jason BECK, as father and next friend of Eli Cameron Beck, a deceased minor

1170288

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 13, 2018

Michael C. Lambert, Athens, for appellant.

Submitted on appellant's brief only.

MAIN, Justice.

Christina Beck ("the mother") appeals from a default judgment entered against her and in favor of Jason Beck, as father and next friend of Eli Cameron Beck, a deceased minor ("the father").1 The mother contends, in part, that the default judgment was premature in that it was, she says, entered before her time to answer the complaint had expired. The father concedes that the default judgment was premature and stipulates that the default judgment should be set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Based on the record before us and the stipulation of the parties, the default judgment is due to be set aside. See *Walker v. First Nat'l Bank of Fairfield*, 219 Ala. 444, 445, 122 So. 682, 682 (1929) ("If a judgment by default is prematurely rendered as shown by the record, it must be reversed on appeal."). Accordingly, the judgment of the Limestone Circuit Court is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We pretermit discussion of all other issues raised on appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Stuart, C.J., and Parker, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.

1

The mother filed a motion to set aside the default judgment; that motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.
IN RE: Scott W. MCQUAIG

NO. 2019-B-0308

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

ORDER

Considering the Joint Petition for Interim Suspension filed by respondent, Scott W. McQuaig, and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that Scott W. McQuaig, Louisiana Bar Roll number 1945, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.3, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Santigie Fullah Kabia, Appellant

No. 06-23-00119-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

20F1411-102). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Chief Justice Stevens, Justice 

van Cleef and Justice Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment in this case (1) to 

reflect that Kabia’s sentence should run concurrently to his other companion cases, (2) to show 

that Kabia pled “not true” to the State’s revocation motion, (3) to delete references to deferred 

adjudication community supervision, and (4) to read, “The trial court previously adjudicated 

guilt and assessed community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke 

community supervision.” As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Santigie Fullah Kabia, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 6, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 11, 2014

No. 04-13-00844-CR

Mathew Ray GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL-12-1963

Honorable Frank Follis, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Court Reporter’s Notification of Late Record is hereby GRANTED. The reporter’s 

record is due April 30, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 104236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30590]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2024-0001]

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Weeks of December 23, 30, 2024 and January 6, 13, 20, 
27, 2025. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on 
short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the 
internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/schedule.html.

PLACE: The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify Anne Silk, NRC 
Disability Program Specialist, at 301-287-0745, by videophone at 240-
428-3217, or by email at [email protected]. Determinations on requests 
for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

STATUS: Public.
    Members of the public may request to receive the information in 
these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office 
of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at 
[email protected] or [email protected].

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Week of December 23, 2024

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 23, 2024.

Week of December 30, 2024--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 30, 2024.

Week of January 6, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 6, 2025.

Week of January 13, 2025--Tentative

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

9:00 a.m. Strategic Programmatic Overview of the Decommissioning and 
Low-Level Waste and Nuclear Materials Users Business Lines (Public 
Meeting), (Contact: Araceli Billoch Colon: 301-415-3302)

    Additional Information: The meeting will be held in the 
Commissioners' Hearing Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 
The public is invited to attend the Commission's meeting in person or 
watch live via webcast at the Web address--https://video.nrc.gov/.

Week of January 20, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 20, 2025.

Week of January 27, 2025--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 27, 2025.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For more information or to verify 
the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via 
email at [email protected].
    The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: December 18, 2024.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Wesley W. Held,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-30590 Filed 12-18-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Randall S. Battat, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Airvana, Inc.;  2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: May 7, 2008 /s/ Randall S. Battat   Randall S. Battat   President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2020027EN.01006701.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/67

---

Action brought on 22 November 2019 – Nutravita v EUIPO – Pegaso (nutravita Healthy Mind, Body & Soul.)

(Case T-814/19)

(2020/C 27/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nutravita Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Dhondt and J. Cassiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pegaso Srl (Negrar, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark nutravita Healthy Mind, Body & Soul. of colours light green and black – Application for registration No 16 255 804

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2019 in Case R 80/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 10(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1)(b) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; and

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-12-00885-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 1030221

Style: Romie Neal

v Seyed M. Hejazi and Seyed P. Hajazi

Date motion filed*: January 16, 2013

Type of motion: Motion to extend time to file notice of appeal

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

Date: March 18, 2013
Larry BURNS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-308

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 21, 2018

Larry Burns, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, FERNANDEZ, and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**778 KA 15-00437** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE ALFRED, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered July 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting an evidentiary hearing. “ ‘When a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea, the nature and extent of the fact-finding inquiry rest[s] largely in the discretion of the Judge to whom the motion is made and a hearing will be granted only in rare instances’ ” ( People v Manor , 27 NY3d 1012, 1013, quoting People v Brown , 14 NY3d 113, 116; see People v Tinsley , 35 NY2d 926, 927; People v Green , 122 AD3d 1342, 1343). Here, the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was supported by an affidavit from defendant detailing his claims, and the court permitted defense counsel to argue the motion. We therefore conclude that defendant was “afforded a reasonable opportunity to advance his claims” and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion without a hearing ( People v Witcher , 222 AD2d 1016, 1016, lv denied 87 NY2d 1027; see Manor , 27 NY3d at 1013; People v Zimmerman , 100 AD3d 1360, 1362, lv denied 20 NY3d 1015). In any event, defendant’s “ ‘conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion’ ” that his plea was coerced is belied by his statements during the plea proceedings ( People v McKinnon , 5 AD3d 1076, 1076-1077, lv denied 2 NY3d 803; see People v Quijada-Lopez , 256**-2- 778 KA 15-00437** 

AD2d 478, 478, lv denied 93 NY2d 928).

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 542 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-840, K2025-841.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30843 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)science_science(2)
              - products_publications(4)

## By Location

              - alaska(4)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - (-)nebraska(2)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(3)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(3)
              - west virginia(1)

## By Year

Project        February 21, 2017        High Plains Water-Level Monitoring Study

Project        August 4, 2021        Groundwater Quality and Age of Secondary Bedrock Aquifers, Eastern Nebraska