alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51021 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FERNANDO GUTIERREZ-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-170-ALL

-------------------- Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Fernando Gutierrez-Munoz raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### ARTHUR RICHARD ORTEGA, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11250

December 20, 1978

587 P.2d 1326

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *E. David Stoebl-ing,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County, for Appellant.

*774
      *Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney and *H. Leon Simon,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

An information charged Arthur Richard Ortega with (1) five counts of robbery (NRS 200.380); (2) six counts of first degree kidnapping (NRS 200/310); and, (3) having used a deadly weapon in the commission of each of those offenses (NRS 193.165). Ortega petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus contending, *inter alia,*that the evidence before the magistrate does not support the charges. The district judge denied the habeas challenge and Ortega has appealed.

1. The challenge to the five counts charging robbery with the use of a deadly weapon is without merit. NRS 171.206. *See*State v. von Brincken, 86 Nev. 769, 476 P.2d 733 (1970). *See also*Robertson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 681, 462 P.2d 528 (1969). At this juncture we are not concerned that the evidence presently in the record may not support a conviction for robbery. *See*McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

2. On the authority of, and for the same reasons stated in, our decision in Wright v. State, 94 Nev. 415, 581 P.2d 442 (1978), the kidnapping charges cannot stand.

Accordingly, the portion of the district court’s order denying habeas as to charges of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon is affirmed. The portion of the order denying habeas on the kidnapping charges is reversed and the district court is instructed to dismiss those charges from the information.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. DONALD GRIFFITH, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 547 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
#### INGRAM v. INSURANCE CO.

No. 24 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 255.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 29 August 1969.
#### UNITED STATES v. PADILLA, et al.

Nos. 90 CR 629-2, 90 CR 629-3.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

Dec. 3, 1990.

*762Fred Foreman, U.S. Atty. by David A. Glockner, Asst. U.S. Atty., Chicago, III, for plaintiff.

William H. Theis, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Candelario Gutierrez.

Sheldon Nagelberg, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Jose Medina.

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

Defendants Candelario Gutierrez and Jose Medina are charged in a superseding indictment with distributing cocaine, possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, and conspiring to commit such acts. In Count III of the indictment, defendants are also charged with use of a firearm in the commission of a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Defendants move to dismiss the firearm charge on the grounds that Count III does not explicitly allege that the use of the firearm was knowing. For the reasons stated below, the court denies defendants’ motion.

Knowledge is an essential element of a § 924(c) offense. Contrary to defendants’ claim, however, the scienter element need not be explicitly stated in an indictment. “A recitation of the exact scienter (‘knowing’) is not required where the pleading ‘fairly imports’ knowledge.” *United States v. Wilson,*884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (indictment sufficiently set out essential elements of § 924(c) offense even though terms “knowingly” or “willfully” not explicitly stated in indictment) (quoting *United States v. Arteaga-Limones,*529 F.2d 1183, 1199 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*429 U.S. 920, 97 S.Ct. 315, 50 L.Ed.2d 286 (1976)).

The express terms of the statutory provision prohibit a defendant from *using or carrying*a firearm *during and in relation to*a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); *United States v. Edun,*890 F.2d 983, 986 (7th Cir.1989). The allegations in the indictment at issue in the present case track those statutory terms. These terms necessarily include a knowledge element. Section 924(c) is violated where “the firearm is within the possession or control of a person who commits an underlying crime as defined by the statute, and the circumstances of the case show that the firearm facilitated or had a role in the crime.... ” *United States v. Rosado,*866 F.2d 967, 970 (7th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 117, 107 L.Ed.2d 79 (1989) (quoting *United States v. Stewart,*779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1985), *cert. denied,*484 U.S. 867, 108 S.Ct. 192, 98 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987)). Clearly, a person cannot have possession or control of a firearm and allow the firearm to play a role in the crime unless the person knew of the firearm’s existence.

“Congress did not intend that [§ 924(c) ] be given a cramped reading.” *Rosado,*866 F.2d at 970. The court finds that the scien-ter element (“knowing”) for a § 924(e) offense need not be explicitly alleged in the indictment. Defendants’ motion is denied.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of November 7, 2005: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, November 10, 2005 at 10 a.m. 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (6), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5), (6), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 10, 2005 will be: 

Formal orders of investigations; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

Opinion; and a 

Regulatory matter bearing enforcement implications. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: November 3, 2005. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-22292 Filed 11-3-05; 4:11 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

N.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, QUINCY POST 

OFFICE, Quincy, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0478

Issued: March 10, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Allan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 31, 2019 appellant filed an appeal from an October 3, 2019 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 20-0478.

The Board has duly considered this matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed her appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current

appeal.3 There are two decisions in the case record dated October 3, 2019; however, one of those 

decisions vacated a February 2, 2018 decision finding that the evidence of record was sufficient to 

establish aggravation of right knee osteoarthritis as an accepted condition and the other October 3, 

2019 decision was a formal acceptance of that condition. As there is no final adverse decision 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes 

that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 20-0478 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 20-0478 is 

dismissed.

Issued: March 10, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURUSANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 P. RichardsThomas P. RichardsChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
 /s/ David W. WehlmannDavid W. WehlmannExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Harkins Cunningham on behalf of Canadian National Railway Company (WB525-10-10/31/2005), for permission to use certain data from the Board's Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration. 

The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis, and Administration within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9. 

*Contact:*                     Mac Frampton, (202) 565-1541.                 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-22127 Filed 11-7-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### BROWN v. R. R. CO. and PHILLIPS v. R. R. CO.

No. 46 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 169.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 October 1969.
Exhibit 10.6 

IONICS, INCORPORATED 

Stock OptionAgreement

        ThisStock Option Agreement (the “Agreement”) made as of this 7th day ofMay, 2003, by and between IONICS, INCORPORATED, a Massachusetts corporation, (the“Company”) and __________________ (the “Director”). 

W I T N E S S E T H  T H A T:  

        WHEREAS,the Corporation by action of its Board of Directors duly taken on February 25, 2003, andof its Stockholders duly taken on May 7, 2003, has adopted the “Ionics, Incorporated2003 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan” (the “Plan”), and hasgranted certain options under the Plan to the Director. 

        WHEREAS,this Agreement is made to evidence the options granted to the Director as contemplated bySection 14 of the Plan; 

        NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed as follows:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6851

WILLIAM HOWARD FREEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-402-AM) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: November 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Howard Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Howard Freeman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 65956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21678]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>10180 and <greek-i>10181]


Alabama Disaster Number AL-00003

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated 08/29/
2005.
    Incident: Hurricane Katrina.
    Incident Period: 08/29/2005 through 09/26/2005.
    Effective Date: 10/20/2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/11/2006.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/29/2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business 
Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 
Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 08/29/2005, is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 01/11/2006.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-21678 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EUGENE KORTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15305 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Eugene Korte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging numerous constitutional claims and other violations of federal 

law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 26 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-15305 

1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Korte’s action because Korte failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                                MARCH 27, 1998

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust
Bank One, Texas, N.A.
7th Floor, Suite 704
Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Gentlemen:

  Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Securities &
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and in the
San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31,
1997 based on reserve reports dated March 25, 1998 prepared by Cawley,
Gillespie & Associates, Inc.

                                       Sincerely,

                                       /s/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                       Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22246]



[[Page 67457]]

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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Extension of Period of Determination on Request for Textile and 
Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China

November 2, 2005.
AGENCY: The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (the 
Committee).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is extending through November 8, 2005, the 
period for making a determination on whether to request consultations 
with China regarding imports of cotton and man-made fiber skirts 
(Category 342/642).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Dowling, Office of Textiles and 
Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4058.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: Section 204 of the Agriculture Act of 1956, as 
amended; Executive Order 11651, as amended.

Background:

    On July 11, 2005, the Committee received a request from the 
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of 
Textile Organizations, the National Textile Association, and UNITE HERE 
requesting that the Committee limit imports from China of cotton and 
man-made fiber skirts (Category 342/642) due to market disruption.
    The Committee determined that this request provided the information 
necessary for the Committee to consider the request and solicited 
public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public 
Comments on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports 
from China, 70 FR 44567 (August 3, 2005).
    The Committee's Procedures, 68 FR 27787 (May 21, 2003) state that 
the Committee will make a determination within 60 calendar days of the 
close of the public comment period as to whether the United States will 
request consultations with China. If the Committee is unable to make a 
determination within 60 calendar days, it will cause to be published a 
notice in the Federal Register, including the date by which it will 
make a determination.
    The 60-day determination period for this case expired on November 
1, 2005. However, the Committee decided to extend until November 8, 
2005, the period for making a determination on this case because of 
consultations with the Government of China on a broader agreement on 
textiles.

James C. Leonard III,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc.05-22246 Filed 11-3-05; 2:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S