alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 25, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

BILLY JOE WINROW, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-5019 v. (N.D. Oklahoma) JUSTIN JONES, Director; WALTER DINWIDDIE, Warden; JAMES LOWMAN, employee; JACK LEMONS, employee; SGT. REEVES, employee, Defendants - Appellees. (D.C. No. 4:08-CV-00761-JHP-TLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , ANDERSON , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
Billy Joe Winrow, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various personnel of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that his claims were barred by-2- his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We see no error in the cogent decision by the district court. As we understand Mr. Winrow’s brief on appeal, the essence of his argument is that there were no administrative remedies to pursue because the prison informed him (apparently incorrectly) in its response to a request to staff (RTS) that the matter was the subject of litigation and therefore could not be considered. We reject the argument. First, Mr. Winrow does not explain why he could not have pursued the denial of his RTS by filing a grievance through proper prison procedures. Second, the record establishes that he did not misunderstand the response to his RTS as barring prison administrative remedies; even after that response, he repeatedly submitted grievances and requests to staff (albeit improperly) regarding the same incident. We AFFIRM the judgment below.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge
Listen

# FY 2020 No FEAR Act Report

August 11, 2020

Report

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**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, each of the undersigned officers of Manhattan
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. do hereby certify that, to the best of their
      knowledge:




(a)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the quarter
      ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)  information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
      Inc.




Dated:
                May 20, 2008
            /s/
                Douglas AbelDouglas
                AbelPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
                May 20, 2008
            /s/
                Michael G. McGuinnessMichael
                G. McGuinnessChief
                Financial Officer
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50895

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO REYES-PACHON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-13-ALL-KC 

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Orlando Reyes-Pachon (Reyes) appeals his conviction and

sentence following his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the

United States after having been deported. Citing United States

v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), he argues that the district court

erred in increasing his criminal history, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.1(e), based on the conclusion that at the time of his

illegal reentry, he had been released from custody for less than

two years. Reyes also argues that the district court committed
No. 04-50895

-2-

“Fanfan error” when it sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory

guideline system. Because we conclude that the district court

committed “Fanfan error” when it sentenced Reyes pursuant to a

mandatory guideline system, see United States v.

Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.) cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 267 (2005), we decline to address Reyes’s argument

that the application of § 4A1.1(e) amounted to Booker error. See

United States v. Apkan, 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005).

 This court reviews a preserved Fanfan challenge for harmless

error. United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.

2005). The Government has not met its burden of demonstrating

that the district court would have imposed the same sentence

absent its mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. 

See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we remand the case for the district court to decide

whether resentencing will be appropriate.

 Reyes’s constitutional challenge to the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). Although Reyes contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court

would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such

arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. 
No. 04-50895

-3-

See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Reyes properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review.

AFFIRMED BUT REMANDED FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE

WHETHER TO RESENTENCE.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U\ITED STATES COAST GUARI)

LINITED STATES OF AMERICA

Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center:

AIJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 21 202-4022

Email: aljdocketcenter(ritusce.mil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7 524 [6IA-SKCG]

F ax: (410) 962-17 46

Address of

Toll Free Fax: 877 243 -3453 CGE.F

COMPLAINANT:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

RESPONDENT: Benjamin Frank Bentrup DOCKFT MIMBER l02l-() i l(r

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NUMBER

763iJ l9l

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on March 24,

2023, seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May 26, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as:

The Respondent signed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement under 46 CFR $5.203.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date.

Done and Dated May 28,2023, at

Baltimore, MD

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that served the forgoing WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET upon

designated representatives) to this proceeding at the addresses the following parties (or

indicated below by .

Benjamin Frank

Email:

Sent

Y

via Email

Done and Dated May 28,2023 at

Baltimore, MD

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

lI.S. Coast Guard

I

Mr. Hector Pacheco

IISCG Sector North Carolina

721 Medical Center Drive

Wilmington, NC 28401

Email: hector. m. oa checo2 @ uscg. m il

Sent Electronicallv via Email
#### PEOPLE ex rel. CHIMIELIEWSKI, Appellant, v. ROSPLOCHOWSKI et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of Max Ghimieliewski against John Rosplochowski and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. GREEN, J., not sitting.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I hereby certify
that:






I
have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009.






To
the best of my knowledge this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (i) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 78o (d)); and, (ii) the information contained
in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Tengasco, Inc. and its subsidiaries
during the period covered by this report.













Dated:
November 9 2009


By:
      s/Michael J. Rugen
              Michael
      J. Rugen
              Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of One World Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), for the year ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), Corinda Joanne Melton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Dennis P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her and his knowledge, that:




(1)           the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Corinda Joanne Melton


Corinda Joanne Melton


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)




Dated: May 1, 2014




/s/ Dennis P. Gauger


Dennis P. Gauger


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)




Dated: May 1, 2014




A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.




This certification accompanies this Annual Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### FRICHETTE v. ALICE FALLS CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Henry Frichette against the Alice Falls Company.

No-opinion. Application for leave to appeal to the court of appeals denied. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 1124.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit issued.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 27, 2021, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on August 30, 2021, to:                

## Permit No. 2022-004

1. Dale Andersen 

Erika N. Davis,

Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2021-19467 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Spillway Release                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Spillway Release                    
json
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Quarterly Report of Hyperion Solutions Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David W. Odell, 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. Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ DAVID W. ODELLDavid W. OdellChief Financial Officer
BATO - BEATTYLatitude: 42.478Longitude: -121.274Elevation: None

BATO - Beatty

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crazyman Flat Site Page...



Crazyman Flat

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summer Rim Site Page...



Summer Rim

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taylor Butte Site Page...



Taylor Butte
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-41-2021]

On May 19, 2021, AbbVie Ltd., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 7I, in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 28540, May 27, 2021). On September 16, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: September 16, 2021.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-20376 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER, 

JOSEPH O'SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN 

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN 

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER 

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK, 

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON, 

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE 

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON, 

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE 

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY 

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON 

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL 

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY 

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE 

FLORES, and JAKE RYAN, 

Defendants. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:16-cr-00051-BR 

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL 

FOR DEFENDANTS ERIC LEE 

FLORES, DYLAN ANDERSON, 

AND SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON 

This matter comes before the Court on the Amended Motion 

(#519) for Continuance of Trial Date filed by Defendant Eric Lee 

1 - ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS ERIC LEE FLORES, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, AND SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 582 Filed 05/18/16 Page 1 of 3
Flores, the Motion (#542) to Continue Trial filed by Defendant 

Dylan Anderson, and the Motion (#566) to Continue Trial Date 

filed by Defendant Sandra Lynn Anderson. Defendants Sandra Lynn 

Anderson and Eric Lee Flores filed written waivers of their 

rights to a speedy trial (#458 and #562 respectively). In his 

Motion Dylan Anderson requested a continuance until "March 1, 

2017, or a date thereafter convenient to the Court" and indicated 

he "consents to the continuance of his trial." 

Based on each of the Defendants' waivers of their rights to 

a speedy trial, the Court GRANTS in part the Amended Motion 

(#519) for Continuance of Trial Date filed by Defendant Eric Lee 

Flores, the Motion (#542) to Continue Trial filed by Defendant 

Dylan Anderson, and the Motion (#566) to Continue Trial Date 

filed by Defendant Sandra Lynn Anderson. The Court, however, 

defers until the August Status Hearing in this matter (August 3, 

2016) setting a new trial date for these Defendants and any 

others who may waive their speedy trial rights and request a 

continuance. Notwithstanding the Court's continuance of the 

trial date, Defendants Flores, Dylan Anderson, and Sandra Lynn 

Anderson must continue to participate in the ongoing Status 

Hearings in this matter through August 3, 2016, and they remain 

bound by the Court's rulings on all motions (including government 

motions) that raise issues applicable to them except to the 

extent that Defendants Flores, Dylan Anderson, and Sandra Lynn 

2 - ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS ERIC LEE FLORES, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, AND SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 582 Filed 05/18/16 Page 2 of 3
Anderson explicitly opt out of any particular motions brought by 

other Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 18th day of May, 2016. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

3 - ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS ERIC LEE FLORES, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, AND SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 582 Filed 05/18/16 Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Shaun Christopher M.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of Family Court which held that his consent was not required for the adoption of his son by his former wife and her new husband because he had abandoned his son. We reverse.

The parties were divorced almost two years after the birth of the child. Petitioner mother was awarded custody, with reasonable visitation privileges afforded to respondent father. Sometime in November 1980, in derogation of respondent’s *1026visitation rights, petitioner and the child moved to California where they resided until January 1982, at which time they returned to Syracuse. While mother and child were in California, the record indicates that the father did not call, write or visit his son. The record also clearly shows that upon their return to Syracuse the father attempted to see the child, but petitioner would not agree to visitation. Respondent thereafter successfully petitioned Family Court for visitation privileges and later petitioned to expand those rights. Although the communications respondent had with his son were not numerous in the six months preceding the filing of the adoption proceeding, the record is replete with evidence of petitioner’s efforts to thwart and interfere with respondent’s efforts to exercise his parental rights. The record does not support the court’s inexplicable conclusion that respondent’s efforts to communicate with his son were motivated by an intent to defeat the adoption, rather than to foster a relationship between father and son.

In seeking to determine whether parental rights have been surrendered, a careful evaluation of factual and evidentiary matter is necessary to obviate the need for consent, and the ultimate question is whether the proof establishes abandonment as a matter of law. "The filial bond is one of the strongest, yet most delicate, and most inviolable of all relationships, and in dealing with it we must realize that a child is not a mere creature of the State for distribution by it * * * A termination of parental rights is a drastic event indeed, so much so that it raises questions of constitutional dimension (see *Matter of Goldman,*41 NY2d 894, 895, *supra; Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548, *supra)” (Matter of Corey L v Martin L,*45 NY2d 383, 392; *see also, Matter of Ian S.,*110 AD2d 1046).

On this record, there has been not only a failure of proof establishing abandonment by clear and convincing evidence as the court found, but the evidence fails to show abandonment by any reasonable standard. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Family Court, McLaughlin, J. — adoption.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.