alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 30263 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
BRIAN DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 38

- 3

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Davis pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess cocaine base and possession of cocaine base (two counts), and he was sentenced within the sentencing guidelines range to concurrent 120

- month terms of imprisonment and to concurrent four

- year periods of supervised release. Davis has moved for dismissal of his appointed c ounsel and for leave to proceed pro se in this appeal. Although Davis has expressed an unequivocal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 26, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-30263 Document: 00512850773 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/26/2014No. 14

- 30263

desire to proceed pro se, his request was untimely because it was made after counsel filed his merits brief and after the Government filed its brief. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998). The motion is DENIED. Through counsel, Davis contends that the district court erred at sentencing in finding him responsible for all of the cocaine purcha sed and sold by his coconspirator/supplier and in failing to make adequate findings with respect to that issue in overruling his drug

- quantity objection. The record reflects that Davis trafficked in large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine and was present on at least one occasion when drugs were distributed by his sup plier to another member of the conspiracy

. For those reasons, any error on the part of the district court in failing to consider adequately whether quantities of drugs distributed by o ther members of the conspiracy w ere reasonably foreseeable to Davis and in failing to make adequate findings on that issue was harmless. See United States v. Puig

Infante , 19 F.3d 929, 942 (5th Cir. 1994) ; United States v. Sparks , 2 F.3d 574,
588

- 89 (5th Cir. 1993) . The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-30263 Document: 00512850773 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/26/2014
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 54 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives relating to Definition of ‘‘Frame or Receiver’’ 

and Identification of Firearms. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. LEE, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. 

BOOZMAN, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. 

BRAUN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. DAINES, Mr. 

ROUNDS, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. RUBIO, and Mr. MARSHALL) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to Definition of ‘‘Frame or Receiver’’ and 

Identification of Firearms. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bu4 reau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relat5 ing to ‘‘Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and IdentificaVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:17 Jun 24, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ54.IS SJ54

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SJ 54 IS 

1 tion of Firearms’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (April 26, 2022)), 

2 and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KENNETH W. GOODSON, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-2004-D

VS. §

 §

SAMUEL B. McCUTCHAN, et al., § 

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the

findings and conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted.

SO ORDERED.

January 20, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-02004-D Document 7 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 31
Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-10   Filed 12/14/17   Page 1 of 3

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-10   Filed 12/14/17   Page 2 of 3

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-10   Filed 12/14/17   Page 3 of 3
THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

S & H Transport, Inc. :

:

v. : No. 242 C.D. 2017

: City of York, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21 st day of December , 20 1 7 , th e opinion filed

October 5 , 201 7

, in the above

- caption ed matter shall be designated Opinion rather

than Memorandum Opinion, and it shall be reported.

________________________________ DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior J udge
# C_2017239EN.01003001.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 16 May 2017 — Oikeusministeriö v Denis Raugevicius

(Case C-247/17)

(2017/C 239/37)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oikeusministeriö

Applicant:

Defendant: Denis Raugevicius

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are national provisions on extradition to be assessed with respect to the freedom of movement of nationals of another Member State in the same way regardless of whether the extradition request of a third State on the basis of an extradition convention concerns the enforcement of a custodial sentence or a prosecution as in the Petruhhin case? (1) Is it relevant that the person sought to be extradited, as well as being a citizen of the Union, is a national of the State which has made the request for extradition? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are national provisions on extradition to be assessed with respect to the freedom of movement of nationals of another Member State in the same way regardless of whether the extradition request of a third State on the basis of an extradition convention concerns the enforcement of a custodial sentence or a prosecution as in the Petruhhin case? (1) Is it relevant that the person sought to be extradited, as well as being a citizen of the Union, is a national of the State which has made the request for extradition?

Petruhhin

1

| 2. | Does a national law under which only its own nationals are not extradited outside the EU for the enforcement of a penalty unjustifiably disadvantage nationals of another Member State? Are the mechanisms of EU law by means of which an objective, acceptable as such, may be achieved in a less prejudicial manner applicable also in an enforcement situation? How is a request for extradition to be answered in a situation in which, such mechanisms being applied, the request is notified to another Member State which, however, does not, for example because of legal obstacles, adopt measures concerning its nationals? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does a national law under which only its own nationals are not extradited outside the EU for the enforcement of a penalty unjustifiably disadvantage nationals of another Member State? Are the mechanisms of EU law by means of which an objective, acceptable as such, may be achieved in a less prejudicial manner applicable also in an enforcement situation? How is a request for extradition to be answered in a situation in which, such mechanisms being applied, the request is notified to another Member State which, however, does not, for example because of legal obstacles, adopt measures concerning its nationals?

---

(1)  Judgment of 6.9.2016, C-182/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:630.

1

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Ahmad Lyndell LAWSON

NO. 2018-KO-2048

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
Christian ALVARADO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-01784-G Document 35 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 765
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01784-G Document 35 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 766
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Financial Condition

September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 

(unaudited)

September 30

2010

December 31

2009

Assets

 Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 84,045,227 $ 12,532,963

 Investments in U.S. Treasury Obligations 3,028,701,840 2,933,269,905

 Accrued Interest Receivable 16,760,766 23,512,734

 Premiums Receivable 63,918,000 319,286,682

 Other Receivable 104 0

Total Assets $ 3,193,425,937 $ 3,288,602,284

Liabilities and Insurance Fund

 Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses $ 224,184 $ 905,873

 Farm Credit Insurance Fund

 Allocated Insurance Reserves Accounts (1)

 Allocated in 2003 0 39,888,431

 Allocated in 2009 0 165,432,087

 Unallocated Insurance Fund Balance 3,193,201,753 3,082,375,893

 Total Insurance Fund 3,193,201,753 3,287,696,411

Total Liabilities and Insurance Fund $ 3,193,425,937 $ 3,288,602,284

(1) In January 2010, the Corporation determined that because of the size of the estimated excess funds 

over the secure base amount, the $39.9 million currently allocated could be distributed and the 

remaining excess would be allocated for potential future distribution. In February 2010, the 

Corporation distributed the $39.9 million and in April 2010, the Corporation distributed the 

remaining $165.4 million allocated to the System institutions.
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation

Statement of Revenue and Expense

For the Period Ended September 30, 2010 and September 30, 2009

(unaudited)

Calendar Year To Date

September 30, 2010

Calendar Year To Date

September 30, 2009

Income

 Premiums $ 63,596,545 $ 259,173,000

 Interest Income on Investments 49,444,909 41,897,821

 Gain/(Loss) on Disposition of Investments 14,548 (4,408)

Total Income $ 113,056,002 $ 301,066,413

Expenses

 Administrative Operating Expenses $ 2,230,089 $ 2,172,505

Total Expenses $ 2,230,089 $ 2,172,505

Net Income $ 110,825,913 $ 298,893,908

Statement of Changes in Insurance Fund 

For Period Ended September 30, 2010

(unaudited)

Balance at January 1, 2010 $ 3,287,696,411

Net Income 110,825,913

Payments to AIRAs Accountholders (205,320,571)

Balance at September 30, 2010 $ 3,193,201,753
Exhibit
32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SmartMetric, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Colin Hendrick,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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. 
 
 /s/
      Colin HendrickColin
      Hendrick, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
  OfficerSmartMetric,
      Inc.May
      25, 2005
Remember 

to Rescan

FCC | Consumer Connections

Why you should periodically rescan

Some stations may stop broadcasting or 

change frequencies, while new stations 

on different channels may become

available. If you receive digital TV 

over-the-air with an antenna, you should 

periodically rescan to update the 

channels you receive. 

How to start a rescan

 

Where to find more information

specific to your equipment

 

 What to do if you’re installing new 

 equipment

Some equipment periodically rescans 

automatically, but some doesn’t. You 

may need to select "scan" or "auto-tune" 

from the TV or converter box control menu 

to start the scanning process. Press

the "set-up" or "menu" buttons on your

remote control to look for instruction.

When you have issues concerning a 

provider or policy, tell us about it via 

the Consumer Complaint Center and 

help inform policymaking and potential 

enforcement activities. 

If you have just installed a converter box 

or set up a DTV-ready television, follow 

the instructions for scanning or auto-tuning 

for channels to ensure you receive all the 

digital stations broadcasting in your area.

 Watch an FCC video on rescanning at

www.fcc.gov/rescan.

ROBOCALLS, TEXTS 

AND SPOOFING

FCC | CONSUMER CONNECTIONS

Find web resources and learn 

more at www.fcc.gov/robocalls

ROBOCALLS AND TEXTS CAN BE 

ANNOYING, FRUSTRATING AND -

EVEN WORSE - FRAUDULENT.

The FCC is committed to protecting you 

from illegal robocalls, texts and caller 

ID spoofing.
Remember to Rescan 

 

If you watch digital TV over-the-air 

with an antenna, you should 

periodically rescan to ensure 

you are receiving all available digital 

channels in your area.

Learn More: 

www.fcc.gov/rescan

What You Can Do

FCC | CONSUMER CONNECTIONS

Don't answer calls from unknown 

callers. That could verify you have 

an active line. Never call back an

unfamiliar number – it may lead to a 

scam.

Spoofed caller ID numbers may trick 

you into answering. If you answer a 

spoofed call, hang up immediately. 

Do not respond to even simple 

questions or requests.

FCC rules offer protection against 

unwanted calls and texts. File a 

complaint with the FCC to help us 

determine where to take action. Visit 

consumercomplaints.fcc.gov

Find web resources and learn more at 

www.fcc.gov/robocalls

Put your mobile and landline numbers 

on the national Do Not Call Registry. 

Visit donotcall.gov or 1-888-382-1222 

from the number you want to register.

Research apps, services or devices 

that help block unwanted calls.

Scam callers may pretend to represent 

an organization, business or even a 

government agency. Never reveal any

personal or financial information 

unless you can independently verify 

the caller.
EXHIBIT 32

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Georgetown  Bancorp,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB,  as amended,  for the period ended September 30, 2005
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Robert E. Balletto,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  and I, Joseph W. Kennedy,  Senior Vice President,  Treasurer and 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 and in
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB,  that we have reviewed the
Form 10-QSB and that to the best of our knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of sections 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the Company's  financial  condition and results of
          operations as of the date and for the periods covered by the Report.


Date: November 23, 2005             /s/ Robert E. Balletto
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Robert E. Balletto
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Chief Executive Officer)


                                    /s/ Joseph W. Kennedy
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Joseph W. Kennedy
                                    Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 18 Filed 06/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 118
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 18 Filed 06/22/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 119
Case 3:06-cv-00276-L Document 18 Filed 06/22/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 120
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Our Glass, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, Chief Executive 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date: October 25, 2010 /s/Cosmo Palmieri     Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JOSE LUIS MONARREZ, 

Relator.

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-09-00142-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus requesting this Court to order the

Honorable David Guaderrama, Judge of the 243rd Judicial District Court, to rule on his motions

for DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and for appointment

of counsel.

In order to obtain relief through a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish: (1) no

other adequate remedy at law is available; and (2) that the act he seeks to compel is ministerial. 

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals At Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2007). An act is ministerial if it does not involve the exercise of any discretion. 

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex.Crim.App. 

2001). Based on the petition and record provided, Mr. Monarez has not demonstrated he is

entitled to mandamus relief. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8. We therefore deny Relator’s request.

June 30, 2009

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Analysis of Population Structure and Stratification in 

NHANES III Self-Reported Race/Ethnicities 

Christopher L. Sanders1 

Ajay J. Yesupriya2 

Lester R. Curtain1 

1 National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

2 National Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Abstract 

We assessed the population structure of 6,597 participants in a nationally representative population based 

on phase 2 of NHANES III using multilocus genetic data. Structure, a program that utilizes a Bayesian 

clustering approach, was used to infer the number of populations in our sample as well as estimate the 

probabilities that an individual’s genetic background was from one or more of these populations. Analyses 

suggested that there were three distinct ancestral populations. Based on the self-reported race/ethnicity of 

our sample, we assumed these to be European, African, and Amerindian populations. Results indicated that 

individuals that self-reported non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black were predominately of European 

and African ancestries, respectively. However, we found evidence of two distinct populations in selfreported Mexican-Americans that were primarily of European or Amerindian ancestry. Significant 

demographic differences between these two subpopulations suggest population stratification that could 

confound statistical analyses involving genetic markers in self-reported Mexican-Americans. 

Keywords: Population, Structure, Stratification, NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey, Self-reported, Race, Ethnicity
Case 3:05-cv-01068-L Document 12-2 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 70
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01068-L Document 12-2 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 71
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01068-L Document 12-2 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 72
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN CHRISTOPHER SMITH, )

ID # 15220-064, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 3:06-CV-0256-D

) 

DAN JOSLIN, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions,

and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and petitioner’s objections thereto filed

November 29, 2006, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned is of the opinion

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the

findings and conclusions of the court.

SIGNED November 30, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:06-cv-00256-D Document 6 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 32