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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51228

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ARTURO MALDONADO-NUNEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 1:16-CR-189-1 

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo MaldonadoNunez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Maldonado-Nunez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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

June 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51228 Document: 00514031870 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2017
No. 16-51228

2 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-51228 Document: 00514031870 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2017
#### Barry AXELROD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 127-89.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1990.

Roy Beene, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty. and Alan Curry, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by one prior conviction, at thirty (30) days in the Harris County Jail. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. *Axelrod v. State,*764 S.W.2d 296 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st] 1988).

We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to examine the following ground for review: “The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient because there was no evidence of a voluntary act of omission by appellant as required by section 6.01 of the Penal Code.”

After careful review of the briefs and the Court of Appeals’ opinion, we have determined that appellant’s petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is therefore ordered dismissed.

BERCHELMANN, J., not participating.
October 23, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILLIAM T BUCKLES, JR., JIMMY DALE LESSLEY DBA LESSLEY SERVICES, 

TPG LEASING, LLC AND TPG TRANSPORT, LLC, Appellants

NO. 14-12-00916-CV V.

KAREN TAYLOR, DAMIAN TAYLOR, BRITTANI TAYLOR, CARL TAYLOR 

AND LARRY TAYLOR, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on August 21, 2012. Having considered the motion and found 

it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellants, William T Buckles, Jr., Jimmy Dale Lessley dba Lessley Services. TPG 

Leasing, LLC and TPG Transport, LLC, jointly and severally.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9063]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 12, 1995 / 
Notices
[[Page 18575]]

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Committee on Judicial Review

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Committee on Judicial 
Review of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

    Date: Monday, April 24, 1995, at 2:30 p.m.

    Location: Office of the Chairman, Administrative Conference of the 
United States, Suite 500, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC (Library 
5th Floor).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Candace Fowler, Office of the 
Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 500, 
2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037. Telephone: (202) 254-7020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is to continue discussion of (1) 
draft recommendations based on a report by Professor William Kovacic, 
visiting at American University, on choice of forum in government 
contract bid protest disputes; and (2) a draft report by Professor 
Michael Healy of the University of Kentucky on preclusion of pre-
enforcement judicial review in Superfund cases.

    Dated: April 7, 1995.

Jeffrey S. Lubbers,

Research Director.

[FR Doc. 95-9063 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6110-01-W
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00098-CR

Raymond MANN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CR-5447

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 19, 2020.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8655]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Role of Federally Funded 
Research and Development Centers (FFRDC's) in DoD Mission

action: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

summary: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Role of Federally 
Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDC's) in DoD Mission will 
meet in open session on April 8, 1995 at Strategic Analysis, Inc., 4001 
N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 175, Arlington, Virginia.
    This meeting is scheduled on short notice because of unforeseen 
circumstances that require this Task Force to assimilate large volumes 
of information into a proposed final report in order to meet a 
Congressionally mandated suspense.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition on 
scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of 
the Department of Defense.
    Persons interested in further information should call Mr. Robert 
Nemetz at (703) 756-2096.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-8655 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7370

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 534 

To prohibit United States Government recognition of the Russian Federation’s 

claim of sovereignty over Crimea, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2023 

Mr. CONNOLLY (for himself and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit United States Government recognition of the 

Russian Federation’s claim of sovereignty over Crimea, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Crimea Annexation 

5 Non-Recognition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNITED STATES RECOGNI7 TION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION’S CLAIM 

8 OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER CRIMEA. 

9 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the 

10 United States not to recognize the Russian Federation’s 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 534 IH

1 claim of sovereignty over Crimea, its airspace, or its terri2 torial waters. 

3 (b) PROHIBITION.—In accordance with subsection 

4 (a), no Federal department or agency may take any action 

5 or extend any assistance that implies recognition of the 

6 Russian Federation’s claim of sovereignty over Crimea, its 

7 airspace, or its territorial waters. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
PLANET POLYMER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY                    EXHIBIT 11.1
Statement of Computation of Common and Common Equivalent Shares
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Years ended December 31,
                                                                    --------------------------
                                                                       1999             1998
                                                                    ---------        ---------
<S>                                                                 <C>              <C>
            Shares outstanding at beginning of period               5,300,144        5,300,144
                 10,169 shares issued on March 15, 1998                10,169            8,107
                 8,695 shares issued on June 15, 1998                   8,695            4,741
                 13,483 shares issued on September 15, 1998            13,483            3,953
                 8,571 shares issued on December 15, 1998               8,571              352
                                                                    ---------        ---------
            Weighted average number of shares                       5,341,062        5,317,297
                                                                                     =========
                 1,000,000 shares issued on January 11, 1999          969,863
                 9,677 shares issued on March 15, 1999                  7,715
                 5,000 shares issued on March 30, 1999                  3,781
                 9,677 shares issued on June 15, 1999                   5,276
                 5,106 shares issued on September 15, 1999              1,497
                 500,000 shares issued on November 5, 1999             76,712
                 5,454 shares issued on December 15, 1999                 239
                                                                    ---------
            Weighted average number of shares                       6,406,145
                                                                    =========
</TABLE>
#### Jason COLEMAN, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67588.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 24, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion *188court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  September 14, 2012



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen

Principal Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40630

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCIS DAVID SALCIE-DE LOS SANTOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-884-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francis David Salcie-De Los Santos appeals the 18-month sentence he 

received following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. His sole 

argument, raised for the first time on appeal, is that the district court erred in 

assessing an eight-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on his 

prior convictions for aggravated felonies. Because Salcie did not raise this 

argument below, review is for plain error only. See United States v. Peltier, 

 

* 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

March 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40630 Document: 00513405312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2016
No. 15-40630

2

505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). To demonstrate plain error, Salcie must

show a clear or obvious error that affects his substantial rights; even if he 

makes this showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only 

if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Salcie has 

failed to satisfy this burden. See id; United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 319 

(5th Cir. 2010); see also 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(C); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, 

comment. (n.3(A)); United States v. Arces-Venes v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167, 171 

(5th Cir. 2007). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40630 Document: 00513405312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 27, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 27, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0254. STATE ROAD AND TOLLWAY AUTHORITY v. CATRINA DEESE 

BODAMER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16110138
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 9, 2019

No. 04-19-00728-CV

Gary DANIELS,

Appellant

v.

Alissa DANIELS,

Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-20628

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On December 4, 2019, the trial court clerk notified this court that the clerk’s record was 

not filed when it was originally due because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to 

pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without 

paying the fee. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court 

within ten days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or 

arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without 

paying the clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of December, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.2
                                                       ------------


             Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Conrail Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-
19155, 33-44140, 33-57717 and 33-60445), and on Forms S-3 (File
Nos. 33-64670 and 33-62929) of our report dated January 24, 1994,
on our audit of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Conrail Inc. and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1993, which report is included in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 25, 1996





<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this quarterly report of ML AspectFuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September30, 2006 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Benjamin Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantof the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006               |                |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                  |
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN WESTON |   |
| Benjamin Weston                       |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |
|                                       |                     |  |  |

 

1

----