alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:314
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:315
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:316
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:317
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:318
Case: 1:00-cv-06591 Document #: 51 Filed: 09/13/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:319
Exhibit 23.1

RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS
(Letterhead)






                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



         As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
hereby consents to (a) the use of our report setting forth our estimates of
proved reserves and future revenue, as of December 31, 2003, to the interest of
Tengasco, Inc. ("Tengasco") in certain oil and gas properties; and (b) all
references to our firm included in or made a part of Tengasco's Annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                         s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
                                         ----------------------------
                                         RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.



Houston, Texas
March 12, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00398-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.E.J.H., a Child

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-06-0564-CVA

Honorable Melissa DeGerolami, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2019

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child, J.E.J.H. 

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding there are no arguable grounds to be 

raised on appeal and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 

(Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases).1

This court issued an order setting a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief; however, appellant 

did not request the record or file a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, 

we agree there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. We therefore affirm the trial court’s 

order. 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

 1 Counsel did not file a motion to withdraw in this court, but filed a letter that was determined to be sufficient to 

comply with counsel’s obligations under Anders.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLAVOND GALLOP,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 412 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of January, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-40893, No. 333-80003, No. 333-122834 and No. 333-122835) of OYO Geospace Corporation of our reports dated December 10, 2010, relating to theconsolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 and for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended September 30, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of September 30, 2010, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ UHY LLP 

Houston, Texas 

December 10, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvaro Henriquez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), *590rendered February 18, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Linakis, J.), of that part of defendant’s motion which sought suppression of physical evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and do not find that the arresting officer’s testimony was either incredible as a matter of law or patently tailored to avoid constitutional objections *(see, People v Berrios,*28 NY2d 361; *People v Brown,*107 AD2d 754; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Accordingly, the People have sustained their burden of going forward in the first instance and showing the legality of the police conduct. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0668

_____________________________ A NTHONY K. G IBSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Paul S. Bryan , Judge

. March 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
##### 



Exhibit 32.01
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Thomas M. MarraName:
    
    Thomas M. MarraTitle:
    
    President and Chief Operating OfficerDate:
    
    August 4, 2005
 47
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1167

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Michael Wayne Mucker, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 1998 Filed: July 7, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Mic hael Wayne Mucker appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to poss essing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm. Mu cker entered into a written plea agreement whereby he agreed to cooperate by providing information and testimony concerning his and others & drug activities and the government agreed to move under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (1994) for a substantial-The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. -2- assistance departure be low the five-year statutory minimum sentence. The agreement contemplated a Guidelines imprisonment ra nge of 46 to 57 months. The district court 1 acce ptedMucker & s plea, granted the government & s section 3553(e) motion, denie d Mucker & s request for a further departure under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 5K1.1, p.s. (1997), and sentenced Mucker to 46 months’ imprisonment and fou r years’ supervised release. Muck er attacks the government & s refusal to make a section 5K1.1 departur e motion. We agree with the government that Mucker has failed to make a substantial showing that the government’s refusal to make such a motion was based upon a n unconstitutional motive or

that it was irrational. See Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United States v. Lewis , 3 F.3d 252, 255 (8th Cir. 1993) (pe r curiam). The judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 18, 2013

h0116 

# Order

January 18, 2013

144643 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144643

COA: 306817

Wayne CC: 10

- 009263

- FC

RAYMOND HENLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of October 26, 2012, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals. On

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions

presented sho uld be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY

, J ., not participating.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 13192 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus PRENTICE BOND, a.k.a. P, a.k.a. Peze,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 5:21

- cr
- 00009

- MTT

- CHW

- 2

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13192 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13192

Before GRANT, BRASHER, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Bond’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Boyd , 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (district court must have clearly conveye d to defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances); United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily). USCA11 Case: 21-13192 Date Filed: 05/16/2022 Page: 2 of 2
#### Maria Guadalupe ROJAS DE GALLARDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73792.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

*250Eudene B. Eunique-Valle, Law Office of Eudene Eunique-Valle, Lucerne Valley, CA, for Petitioner.

Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Tim Ramnitz, Carmel Aileen Morgan, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Guadalupe Rojas De Gallardo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and review de novo claims of due process violations. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas De Gallardo’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision dismissing her appeal. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *Socop-Gonza-lez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n. 2 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

We agree with the BIA that Rojas De Gallardo’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim against her former counsel is unavailing because she failed to establish prejudice. *See Mohammed,*400 F.3d at 793.

We lack jurisdiction to review Rojas De Gallardo’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim against her current counsel because she failed to raise that issue before the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# Official Journal L 3/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 637 January 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 3

English edition

Legislation

Volume 637 January 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Decision No 2/2019 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement Between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 10 December 2019 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport [2020/6] | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Decision No 2/2019 of the Joint European Union/Switzerland Air Transport Committee set up under the Agreement Between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport of 10 December 2019 replacing the Annex to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport [2020/6]

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research: University Park, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Software
                        Integrated Farming Systems Project
                                    Integrated Farm System Model
                                    Dairy Gas Emissions Model
                                    Beef Gas Emissions Model
                                    Projected Future Climate Data for IFSMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area University Park, Pennsylvania Pasture Systems & Watershed Management Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Contact Information
- Research Projects
- Publications
- Selected Publications
- ARS News Articles

Paul R Adler
                     

                     Research Agronomist


                     Phone: (814) 865-8894
                     
                     

                     Fax: (814) 863-0935
                     

                     CURTIN ROAD, BUILDING 3702                        
                     
                     

                     UNIVERSITY PARK               , PA 16802-370


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1393

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Javier Contreras Arredondo, also known as Javier Contreeas Arredondo

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

 ____________

 Submitted: October 27, 2020

Filed: October 30, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Javier Contreras Arredondo appeals after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. 

His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Arredondo has also submitted a pro se brief.
Arredondo challenges the district court’s1

 denial of a mitigating-role reduction,

and the imposition an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) (applying 2-level

enhancement if the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine the

defendant knew was imported unlawfully). After careful review, we find no clear

error. See United States v. Hunt, 840 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of

review; stating that a mitigating-role reduction applies to a participant substantially

less culpable than the average participant in the criminal activity, but does not

provide an “affirmative right” to a reduction for all actors but the criminal

mastermind); United States v. Rivera-Mendoza, 682 F.3d 730, 733-34 (8th Cir. 2012)

(standard of review; affirming the imposition of an importation enhancement where

the defendant made calls to Mexican methamphetamine sources and sent drug

proceeds to Mexico). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Arredondo, as the record indicates that the district court

properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.

Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that under a substantive

reasonableness review, the district court abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider

a relevant factor,” “gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,” or

“commits a clear error of judgment” in weighing the factors). 

As to Arredondo’s remaining pro se arguments, we conclude that he has not

established an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d

1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (stating that a sentencing-disparity argument requires the

defendant to show there are comparators with a similar record who engaged in similar

conduct). We defer any ineffective-assistance claims for collateral proceedings. See

United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007). Further, having

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988),

1The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion,

and affirm. 

______________________________

-3-
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1175

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen

Advisory Commission for 10 additional years.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1997

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources

A BILL

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation

Area Citizen Advisory Commission for 10 additional years.

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DELAWARE WATER

4 GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CITIZEN

5 ADVISORY COMMISSION.

6 Section 5 of Public Law 101–573 (16 U.S.C. 460o

7 note) is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’.

Æ
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Credicorp Ltd. Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

| 1.     | I am the Chairman Executive Officer of Credicorp   Ltd. (the “Company”). |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                               |
| 2.     | To my knowledge:                                                                   |

(A)          The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(B)          The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: June 30, 2006 |                    |
|----------------------|-------------------------|
|                 |                    |   |
|                 |                    |   |
|                 | /s/ DIONISIO ROMERO     |   |
|                 |                         |   |
| Name:           | Dionisio Romero         |   |
| Title:          | Chief Executive Officer |   |