alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20973]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-34-004]


Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

April 20, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 16, 2001, Dauphin Island Gathering 
Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed below to become 
effective April 1, 2001. DIGP states that these tariff sheets reflect 
changes to shipper names and Maximum Daily Quantities (MDQ's).

Fifth Revised Sheet No. 9
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 10

    DIGP states that a copy of this filing are being served on its 
customers and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10317 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.1
                            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 Quarterly Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gary H. Schlatter,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Gary H. Schlatter
------------------------------------------
Gary H. Schlatter, Chief Executive Officer

Dated May 19, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.

                                       14
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eduardo RODRIGUEZ-SERNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41174

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eduardo Rodriguez-Serna appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to attempted illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. At sentencing, the district court applied a 16-level sentence enhancement based on its finding that Rodriguez-Serna’s 2006 Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). The district court de*489termined that the advisory guidelines range was 70 to 87 months and, after denying Rodriguez-Serna’s requests for a downward departure or a variance for his cultural assimilation, imposed a 70-month term of imprisonment.

As the Government concedes, the record indicates that Rodriguez-Serna’s pri- or conviction was under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(3), which we have held does not meet the generic, contemporary definition of burglary. See *United States v. Constante,*544 F.3d 584, 586 (5th Cir. 2008). The Government failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Rodriguez-Serna’s prior conviction qualified for the sentencing enhancement. *See United States v. Herrera-Solorzano,*114 F.3d 48, 50 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court erred in applying the 16-level enhancement for a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii).

In light of the district court’s misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines, this court must remand unless the Government establishes that the error is harmless. *United States v. Delgado-Martinez,*564 F.3d 750, 753 (5th Cir.2009). The Government also concedes that it cannot show that the error was harmless. Therefore, we VACATE Rodriguez-Serna’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

*

 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alan DiRenzi, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J.—burglary, second degree, two counts.) Present —Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 18-5628

GARY PHILBROOK, APPELLANT,

V.

DENIS MCDONOUGH,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

On Remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(Decided February 11, 2022)

Kenneth Carpenter, of Topeka, Kansas, for the appellant.

James M. Byrne, General Counsel; Mary Ann Flynn, Chief Counsel; Selket N. Cottle, 

Deputy Chief Counsel; and Shondriette D. Kelley, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for 

the appellee.

Before PIETSCH, GREENBERG, and TOTH, Judges.

TOTH, Judge: This case is before the Court on remand from the Federal Circuit. Philbrook 

v. McDonough, 15 F.4th 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Court remands to the Board for further 

consideration in line with the Federal Circuit's decision.

In a June 2018 decision, the Board denied a rating for total disability based on individual 

unemployability (TDIU) under federal provisions that prohibit the assignment of a TDIU rating to 

a veteran who "is incarcerated in a Federal, State or local penal institution or correctional facility 

for conviction of a felony." 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c); accord 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(b) (2021). In a May 

2020 memorandum decision, this Court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the plain 

language of the statute ("incarcerated" in a "correctional facility") coveredthe veteran's situation—

confinement at the Oregon State Hospital after entering a stipulation of guilty except for insanity.

Mr. Philbrook appealed to the Federal Circuit, which held that "the Oregon State Hospital is not a 

'penal institution or correctional facility' under § 5313(c)" and reversed this Court's "decision that 

Mr. Philbrook was barred from receiving a TDIU rating as a matter of law." Philbrook, 15 F.4th 

at 1121.

Accordingly, the Court VACATES and REMANDS the Board's June 19, 2018, decision 

denying TDIU for readjudication.
(85 South. 921)

#### CONSOLIDATED CONE CO. v. MARTIN.

(6 Div. 101.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 25, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County;

Hugh A. Locke, Judge. Weakley & Rice, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
Exhibit 32.3

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 Annual Report of MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger D. Linquist, President and Chief Executive 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 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 9, 2006



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Roger D. Linquist                
|    |  | Roger D. Linquist                    
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Instructions, Form 312

December 1, 2017

ORDER AND NOTICE FOR HEARING ON DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

General Information

Official Form 312 is used in chapter 9 municipality cases and chapter 11 reorganization 

cases to provide certain parties in interest with an order and notice of a hearing to consider the 

approval of the disclosure statement. The disclosure statement is a document that contains 

information concerning the assets, liabilities, and business affairs of the debtor sufficient to 

enable a creditor holding a claim or interest to make an informed judgment about the plan of 

reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 1125. 

This form, while legally sufficient, is often simply the starting point for drafting a longer 

notice containing additional provisions applicable to a particular case. Although issued in the 

name of the court, the Order and Notice for Hearing on Disclosure Statement normally will be 

drafted by the attorney for the debtor or other plan proponent. It must be approved by the court 

before to being sent to creditors and other parties in interest.

Applicability of Rule 9009(a)

Rule 9009(a) provides that “[t]the Official Forms prescribed by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States shall be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided ... in the 

national instructions for a particular Official Form.” 

Alterations may be made to this form.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00493

- CR

Thayer Lawson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court

of Denton County (F

- 2010

- 0994

- D)

January 29, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the

trial court is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

_____________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
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 Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

          - [Program Announcement No. ACYF-PA-HS-2001-05B]

# AGENCY:

Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS.

# ACTION:

Correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains a correction to the Notice that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 7, 2001.                    

On page 13760, in the State of New York, delete the County of “Seneca”, and in the Service Area Column delete “Entire County”. All of the County is open to competition to establish Early Head Start programs.

                        The due date will be extended for applications                         *from this county only.*                         Applications from Seneca County are due by 5 p.m. EDT on May 29, 2001. The application should be submitted to: Early Head Start Nationwide Expansion Competition, ACYF Operations Center, 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209.                    

All other applications are still due by 5 p.m. EDT on May 7, 2001.

On page 13755, in the State of Maine, in the County column, delete “Southern Oxford” and replace it with “Oxford” and in the Service Area Column, delete “South Paris, Buckfield, Summer, Hartford” and replace it with “Entire County”.

On page 13766, in the State of Washington, in the County Column, after “Spokane” add the County of “Walla Walla”, and in the Service Area Column, add “The city of Walla Walla, Farm Labor Homes Community and College Place”.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The ACYF Operations Center at 1-800-351-2293 or send an email to                         *ehs@lcgnet.com*. You can also contact Sherri Ash, Early Head Start, Head Start Bureau at (202) 205-8562.                    

Dated: April 20, 2001.

Gail E. Collins,

Acting Deputy Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

[FR Doc. 01-10396  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed April 13, 2020

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00910-CV

IN RE TRAWAYNE GEORGE, Appellant

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-10285

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Osborne, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

By postcard dated February 14, 2020, we notified appellant the time for filing 

a brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a brief and extension motion within 

ten days and cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal 

of this appeal without further notice. Appellant has not filed a brief, filed an 

extension motion, or corresponded with the Court regarding this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

190910F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN RE TRAWAYNE GEORGE, 

Appellant

No. 05-19-00910-CV 

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-10285.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Whitehill and Osborne 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of April, 2020.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-40904

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL PINEDA PINEDA, also known as Sealed3, also known as Chame, 

also known as Sammy,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CR-70-3

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GRAVES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Samuel Pineda Pineda, federal prisoner # 17572-078, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, in which he sought a

reduction of his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. The motion was based on Sentencing Guidelines 

Amendment 782.

 

* 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

July 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-40904 Document: 00515033882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2019
No. 18-40904

2

We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence 

under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 

713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). De novo review applies to the district court’s 

interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, and we review the district court’s 

factual findings for clear error. Id.

Pineda Pineda argues that the district court erred in finding in the 

§ 3582(c)(2) proceeding that he was responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of 

actual methamphetamine, a quantity that rendered him ineligible for a 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782. The drug 

quantity assessed when Pineda Pineda was sentenced, an undetermined 

amount above 1.5 kilograms, was not specific enough to determine his 

eligibility for § 3582(c)(2) relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion 

here in making the supplemental drug-quantity finding, based on the record 

at the time of Pineda Pineda’s sentencing, to determine his eligibility for a 

sentence reduction. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712-13 (5th 

Cir. 2011). The supplemental finding is consistent with the district court’s 

finding at sentencing and is not clearly erroneous based on the evidence.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-40904 Document: 00515033882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2019
Exhibit 23.02

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-66758, 333-102509,
333-109809, 333-112728, 333-133332, 333-141660, 333-149281, and 333-159211 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-140268 and 333-143989 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of PDF Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San
Jose, California
March 16, 2010

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21234-21235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9871]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

April 10, 2000.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before May 22, 2000 to 
be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1672.
    Regulation Project Number: REG-209135-88 NPRM and Temporary.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Certain Asset Transfers to Regulated Investment Companies 
(RICs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs).
    Description: The regulation applies with respect to the net built-
in gain of C corporation assets that become assets of a Regulated 
Investment Company (RIC) or Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) by the 
qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or REIT or by the transfer of 
assets of a C corporation to a RIC or REIT in a carryover basis 
transaction. The regulation generally requires the corporation to 
recognize gain as if it had sold the assets at fair market value and 
immediately liquidated. The regulations permit the transferee RIC or 
REIT to elect, in lieu of liquidation treatment, to be subject to the 
rules of section 1374 of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations 
thereunder. In order to obtain the benefit of a section 1374 election, 
the taxpayer is required to make a statement indicating that it elects 
to be subject to the rules of section 1374 and the regulations 
thereunder.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 30 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (once).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 50 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 
5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New

[[Page 21235]]

Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-9871 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P