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

No. 19

- 50566 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ant

v. JOSE MANUEL FELIX

- FELIX , Defendant

- Appell ee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 1200

- 1

Before 

### HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Manuel Felix

- Felix was indict ed on one cha r ge of illegal reentry following removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court granted his motion to dismiss the indictment after concluding that his removal order was invalid because his notice to appear did not include a specific time and date f or his removal hearing. The Government appeals and mo ves for summary disposition, arguing that the district court’s dismissal of the

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED December 3, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50566 Document: 00515221571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2019No. 19

- 50566

2 indictment was erroneous under United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019) . Alterna te ly, the Government moves for an extension of time in which to file a brief. Summary disposition is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke T ransp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Pedroza

- Rocha concluded that the notice to appear was not deficient because it did not specify a date for the hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration court of j urisdiction, and that Pedroza

- Rocha could not collaterally attack his notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 F.3d at 496

- 98. These conclusions are contrary to those of the district court in this case and show that the d istrict court erred by granting Felix

- Felix’s motion to dismiss. See id

. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT , the judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings

. Case: 19-50566 Document: 00515221571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2019
#### A. B. DRAFTS v. JAMES SUMMEY and His Wife, CAROLINE SUMMEY.

(Filed 4 December, 1929.)

Justices oí the Peace E a — Where appeal from justice’s court has not been docketed according to C. S., 660, dismissal is proper.

Where an appeal from the justice of the peace has been dismissed in the Superior Court for failure to docket the appeal therein as required by C. S., 660, the judgment of the Superior Court will be sustained by the Supreme Court on further appeal thereto. As to whether the magistrate’s judgment is void on its face is not presented or decided on this appeal.

Appeal by defendants from *Finley, J.,*at April Term, 1929, of HeNbersoN.

Affirmed.

This action for the summary ejectment of defendants from land described in the affidavit filed by plaintiff, was begun in a, court of a justice of the peace of Henderson County on 15 December, 1928.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants went into possession of said land as his tenants at will, and that their term had expired. Defendants denied the tenancy. They alleged that the court was without jurisdiction of the action, for that the title to the land was involved therein. The court found, as appears from its judgment, that this allegation is not bona fide, and that plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land.

From judgment for the plaintiff rendered on 22 December, 1928, defendants gave notice of their appeal to the Superior Court of Henderson County. They failed to docket said appeal at the next term of said court, which convened on 14 January, 1929. Upon the docketing of the appeal at the term of said court which began on 29 January, 1929, plaintiff moved that same be dismissed. This motion was allowed.

From judgment dismissing the appeal, defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

*70
      *Ewbanhs, Whitmire & Weeks for plaintiff.*

*Geo. M. Pritchard, McKinley Pritchard and Reynolds G. Florance for defendants.*

Per Oubiam.

The judgment dismissing defendants’ appeal from the judgment of the court of the justice of the peace to the Superior Court of Henderson County is affirmed. C. S., 660. *Barnes v. Saleeby,*177 N. C., 256, 98 S. E., 708. Defendants having failed to docket their appeal as required by statute, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss said appeal was properly allowed. Whether or not the judgment of the justice of the peace in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, is void on its face, is not presented or decided on this appeal. We decide only that there was no error in the judgment dismissing the appeal from the justice of the peace. The judgment is

Affirmed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2439 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 15:18:41 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2439 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 15:18:41 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2439 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 15:18:41 Page 3 of

3
#### Elliot Daskal, Claimant, v State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 66098.)

Court of Claims,

May 20, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kantrowitz & Goldhamer, P. C. (Barry S. Kantrowitz*of counsel), for claimant. *Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Barry, McTiernan & Moore [Roger P. McTiernan*and *Carol Ann Weinman*of counsel]), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Gerard M. Weisberg, J.

The subject of this motion is related to whether interest on a bifurcated nonjury trial of a tort action runs from the date *601of the decision upon which final judgment was entered or the date of the interlocutory judgment determining liability.

When that question was first raised before this court, we held that the computation would be from the former in the absence of any delay caused by the "fault” of the defendant. A motion, appeal or other legal proceedings undertaken by the defendant could result in interest computation from the date of the liability decision. *(Zegman v State of New York,*99 Misc 2d 473.) The following year the principle was reiterated. *(Weiner v State of New York,*NYLJ, Nov. 3, 1980, at 14, col 2; *see,*1980 NY St Dept of Law Ann Rep, at 65.)

Accordingly, most recently it was stated that when the defendant does appeal from the determination of liability, thereby delaying the damage phase of the trial, interest will accrue from the date of the interlocutory judgment. *(Gunnarson v State of New York,*Ct Cl, July 30, 1985, *affd*124 AD2d 642, *Iv granted*69 NY2d 606.)

In the case now before us, after rendition of the decision on liability, the defendant moved to vacate the interlocutory judgment. That application was returnable on April 23, 1986 and an order of denial was signed on May 6, 1986. This period is a delay chargeable to the defendant within the view expressed in *Zegman v State of New York*(99 Misc 2d 473, *supra).*For it claimant is entitled to interest.

Any other hiatus between the interlocutory and final judgments was based on the interval for the ordering of transcripts of the stenographer’s minutes, the period allotted to the parties for submission of briefs and the time taken by the court to render its findings in the form of a decision. (CPLR 4213.) None of these do we deem "fault” within the *Zegman*holding.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

December 28, 2011 

p1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143746 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 14 3746 

 COA: 304815 

 Kent CC: 10-006383-FC 

JOSHUA STEVEN MITCHELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 3, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50900

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNNY M. GONZALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-388

- - - - - - - - - -

August 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny M. Gonzales appeals from the district court’s denial

of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Gonzales argues that he received

ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for

essentially the reasons adopted by the district court. See

United States v. Gonzales, No. A-95-CV-388 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 10,
No. 95-50900

- 2 -

1995). Gonzales’s assertion that trial counsel refused to allow

him to testify on his own behalf, raised for the first time in

this appeal, is reviewed for plain error. Nothing in the record

or in Gonzales’s allegations before the district court reviewing

his federal habeas motion would have alerted the court to this 

asserted error. Because Gonzales has failed to show that the

alleged error was clear and obvious to the district court, his

assertion on appeal is without merit.

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationPacketeer Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawarePacketeer International Inc.
    
    DelawarePacketeer Caymans
    
    CaymanPacketeer K.K.
    
    JapanPacketeer Asia Pacific Limited
    
    Hong KongPacketeer Europe B.V.
    
    The NetherlandsPacketeer Technologies
    
    CanadaPacketeer Australia Pty Limited
    
    AustraliaPacketeer UK Ltd.
    
    United KingdomPacketeer GmbH
    
    GermanyPacketeer SAS
    
    FrancePacketeer Aps
    
    DenmarkPacketeer Singapore
    
    SingaporePacketeer Korea
    
    South KoreaPacketeer Iberica
    
    SpainPacketeer Shanghai
    
    ChinaPacketeer Beijing
    
    ChinaPacketeer India
    
    IndiaPacketeer Malaysia
    
    MalaysiaPacketeer (Thailand) Ltd.
    
    ThailandPacketeer Italy s.r.l.
    
    Italy
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES            CODE,**

**AS            ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as            adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as            chief financial officer of MacroChem Corporation (the “Company”), does            hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 
| 1) | Company’s report on Form 10-Q for the period ended                        June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the                        “Form 10-Q”)                        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 Company’s Form 10-Q                        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and                        results of operations of the Company. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | /s/  Bernard R. Patriacca                                                                                               |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Bernard R. Patriacca

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and                        Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

Dated:            August 14, 2007

 

 

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

 

 

36
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	VP-4 Assists in Counter Drug Operations: U.S. 4th Fleet
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">VP-4 Assists in Counter Drug Operations: U.S. 4th Fleet</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Petty Officer 2nd Class Juan Sua, Patrol Squadron 4</b> <span class="date">/ Published Feb. 24, 2020</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>COMALAPA, EL SALVADOR - Sailors assigned to Patrol Squadron (VP) 4, currently forward deployed to Cooperative Security Location (CSL), El Salvador work in unison with the U.S. Coast Guard and local forces to counter drug operations within the U.S. 4th Fleet area of operations.</p>

<p>VP-4, operating out of CSL since October 2019, has flown 353 operational hours in the P-8A Poseidon multi-mission aircraft and have assisted in the seizure of 11,316 kilograms of cocaine, with a street value of $792,120,000.</p>

<p>“The men and women of VP-4 have helped made the United States a safer place to live,” said Rear Adm. Pete Garvin, commander, Patrol and Reconnaissance Group. “These illicit narcotics will never make it into our homes, schools, or communities.”</p>

<p>Utilizing the Navy’s latest intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, the P-8A crews play an important role in drug interdiction operations by providing an eye in the sky. Crew members are able to identify contacts of interest with advanced radars and vector in assets from the U.S. Coast Guard and other Latin American partners.</p>

<p>VP-4, currently forward deployed to the U.S. 4th Fleet supports U.S. Southern Command's joint and combined military operations by employing maritime forces in cooperative maritime security operations in order to maintain access, enhance interoperability, and build enduring partnerships in order to enhance regional security and promote peace, stability, and prosperity in the Caribbean, Central and South American regions.</p>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1995             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      664,219                 968,297
<SECURITIES>                              2,135,478              15,102,380
<RECEIVABLES>                                92,168                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  36,114                  35,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,034,856              16,264,394
<PP&E>                                    1,868,192              11,627,348
<DEPRECIATION>                              552,782                 947,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            4,748,347              27,146,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       501,945               3,861,038
<BONDS>                                     351,485                 214,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    13,433,482                       0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                       0
<COMMON>                                      1,146                   9,448
<OTHER-SE>                              (9,539,711)              23,061,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              4,748,347              27,146,116
<SALES>                                      39,006                  35,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            105,673                 475,904
<CGS>                                             0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                49,647                 171,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,451,923               5,209,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           72,633                  54,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,341,984)             (4,160,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,341,984)             (4,160,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                       0
<CHANGES>                                         0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            (3,341,984)             (4,160,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (3.07)                  (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (3.07)                  (0.64)


</TABLE>
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## National Summit for Language Access and the Courts

Nearly 300 court leaders from 49 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia, concluded the first ever Nation Summit on Language Access and the Courts in Houston, Texas, October 1-3, 2012. The Summit focused on developing solutions to improve access to justice for litigants with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). The Summit enabled state court leaders to share successful strategies and evidence-based practices, plan system improvements, and discuss ways to pursue greater consistency across the states on policies related to court interpretation. A Summit website is available that includes the Summit program, speaker bios, and videos conference and events section. A National Call to Action report will be issued on the Summit’s outcomes and strategies.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12845]



[[Page 30060]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLMT922200-10-L13100000-FI0000-P; MTM 97526 and MTM 97527]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases 
MTM 97526 and MTM 97527, Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Panther Energy Company, LLC timely filed 
a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas leases MTM 
97526 and MTM 97527, Richland County, Montana. The lessee paid the 
required rental accruing from the date of termination.
    No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to 
new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16\2/3\ 
percent. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the 
reinstatement of each lease and the $163 cost for publishing this 
Notice.
    The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per 
Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). 
We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of 
termination subject to:
    <bullet> The original terms and conditions of the lease;
    <bullet> The increased rental of $10 per acre;
    <bullet> The increased royalty of 16\2/3\ percent; and
    <bullet> The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teri Bakken, Chief, Fluids 
Adjudication Section, Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 
5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5091.

Teri Bakken,
Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.
[FR Doc. 2010-12845 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P