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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20160

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL GARCIA GARCIA, also known as Luis Antonio 

Barrientos, also known as Victor Hugo Tajiboy-Chay,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-636-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel 

Garcia Garcia 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). Garcia Garcia has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

 

* 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

August 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20160 Document: 00514622500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2018
No. 18-20160

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no 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: 18-20160 Document: 00514622500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/30/2018
----

| (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 20, 2008 |   /s/      John M. Lowber |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                         | John M.      Lowber            |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer   |
|                         | GCI,      Inc.                 |

----
H. R. 657

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC Projects

numbered 4204, 4660, and 4659 (and after reasonable notice), is

authorized, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and

public interest requirements of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such section, to extend the time required

for commencement of construction for the project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall take effect

for the project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by

the Commission under such section 13) of the period required

for commencement of construction of such project.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

# AGENCY:

Economics and Statistics Administration. 

# ACTION:

Performance Review Board Membership. 

# SUMMARY:

Below is a listing of individuals who are eligible to serve on the Performance Review Board in accordance with the Economics and Statistics Administration's Senior Executive Service and Senior Professional Performance Management Systems: 

Thomas L. Mesenbourg 

Shirin Ahmed 

Mark Wallace 

William G. Bostic, Jr. 

Daniel Weinberg 

Nancy M. Gordon 

Arnold A. Jackson 

Theodore A. Johnson 

Ruth Ann Killion 

Andrew Moxam 

Michael J. Longini 

Francis Grailand Hall 

Brian Monaghan 

C. Harvey Monk 

Daniel Weinberg 

Tommy Wright 

William Bell 

Michael Palensky

James Tyler, Jr.

Douglas Clift

Marilia Matos

David Hackbarth

Jeffrey Mayer 

Enrique Lamas 

Thomas Zabeisky 

David Whitford 

Frank Vitrano

Susan Schechter Bortner 

Howard Hogan

David Johnson

Cheryl Landman 

David F. Findley 

Paul Friday 

J. Steven Landefeld 

Rosemary D. Marcuss 

Dennis J. Fixler 

Brent R. Moulton 

Joel Platt 

James K. White 

Dr. Jennifer Madans

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Crystal Roy, 301-763-3727. 

Dated: August 6, 2008. 

James K. White, 

Associate Under Secretary for Management  Chair,  Performance Review Board.

[FR Doc. E8-19147 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-BS-M
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(c)


Magellan GP, LLC
Non-Management Director
Compensation Program


Effective January 1, 2020




	
			
	 
	Compensation
	Timing of Payment(1)

	Annual Board Retainer:(2)
    Cash




    Common Units
	

$80,000




$120,000(3)
	

Paid quarterly as of January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st 


As of January 1st 

	Annual Chairman Retainer:(2) 
    Audit Committee
    Compensation Committee
    Conflicts Committee
Nominating and Governance             Committee
Lead Director
	

$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
	

Paid quarterly as of January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st 

	Meeting Fees: 
    Board Meeting Fees
    Committee Meeting Fees
	

$1,500 per meeting
$1,500 per meeting
	

Paid quarterly as of January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st 






		
	(1)
	For newly elected directors or a newly appointed committee chairman, the annual board retainer and annual chairman retainer, if applicable, are payable pro-rata for the year of election.  




		
	(2)
	Directors who resign from the board or relinquish their role of committee chairman after a payment date has occurred, but prior to the payment having been received, will receive a pro-rata annual board retainer and annual chairman retainer for the period of time between the payment date and the resignation/relinquishment. 




		
	(3)
	The number of common units to be issued for the annual board retainer will be determined based on the closing price on the first business day immediately following the January 1st payment date.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William A. Grimshaw, Appellant, v. William A. Prendergast, Register of Kings County, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.R. 740

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To confer jurisdiction on the United States Court of Federal

Claims with respect to land claims of Pueblo of Isleta

Indian Tribe.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 740 RDS

1 SECTION 1. JURISDICTION.

2 Notwithstanding sections 2401 and 2501 of title 28,

3 United States Code, and section 12 of the Act of August

4 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1052), or any other law which would

5 interpose or support a defense of untimeliness, jurisdiction

6 is hereby conferred upon the United States Court of Fed7 eral Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment on

8 any claim by Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico

9 against the United States with respect to any lands or in10 terests therein the State of New Mexico or any adjoining

11 State held by aboriginal title or otherwise which were ac12 quired from the tribe without payment of adequate com13 pensation by the United States. As a matter of adequate

14 compensation, the United States Claims Court may award

15 interest at a rate of five percent per year to accrue from

16 the date on which such lands or interests therein were ac17 quired from the tribe by the United States. Such jurisdic18 tion is conferred only with respect to claims accruing on

19 or before August 13, 1946, and all such claims must be

20 filed within three years after the date of enactment of this

21 Act. Such jurisdiction is conferred notwithstanding any

22 failure of the tribe to exhaust any available administrative

23 remedy.

24 SEC. 2. CERTAIN DEFENSES NOT APPLICABLE.

25 Any award made to any Indian tribe other than the

26 Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe of New Mexico before, on,
3

HR 740 RDS

1 or after the date of the enactment of this Act under any

2 judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or any other

3 authority with respect to any lands that are the subject

4 of a claim submitted by the tribe under section 1 shall

5 not be considered a defense, estoppel, or set-off to such

6 claim, and shall not otherwise affect the entitlement to,

7 or amount of, any relief with respect to such claim.

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7757

EDDIE LEE MUMFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PAUL DAVIS, Chairman, Maryland Parole Commission, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-1404-DKC) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998 Before ERVIN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Eddie Lee Mumford, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Susan Lynn Howe, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Eddie Mumford appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Mumford alleged that there has been a change inthe way that the Maryland Parole Commission computes his eligibility for parole review, and that the change violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. We conclude that, assuming Mumford’s factual allegations to be true, they do not constitute a “sufficient risk” of increasing the punishment attached to the crime. California Dep’t of Corrections v. Morales , 514 U.S. 499, 509 (1995). Mumford cannot show with assurance that he would have received parole under the old system, but only that he missed an opportunity to be evaluated for earlier release. Therefore, the change is not an Ex Post Facto violation. Roller v. Gunn , 107 F.3d 227, 237 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3260 (U.S., Oct. 6, 1997) (No. 97-5072). We affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment in this action. 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.

AFFIRMED
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 840

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United

States Courthouse’’.‘‘Walter B. Jones Federal Building and UnitedStreet in Greenville, North Carolina, as theStates courthouse located at 215 South Evans
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 840

AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville,

North Carolina, as the ‘‘Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse

5 located at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North
2

•HR 840 EH

1 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter

2 B. Jones Federal Building and United States Court3 house’’.

4 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

5 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

6 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

7 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec8 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Walter

9 B. Jones Federal Building and United States Court10 house’’.

Passed the House of Representatives December 5,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Gil Boosidan, Chief Executive Officer and Director of Suspect Detection Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Registrant for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  Date: February 3, 2011
By:
/s/ Gil BoosidanName:  Gil BoosidanTitle:  Chief Executive Officer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 584

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish hatchery to the

State of Iowa.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

Mr. LEACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a fish

hatchery to the State of Iowa.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF THE FAIRPORT NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF IOWA.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Within 180 days after the date

6 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

7 shall convey to the State of Iowa without reimbursement

8 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and

9 to the fish hatchery described in subsection (b) for use
2

•HR 584 IH

1 by the State for purposes of fishery resources manage2 ment.

3 (b) HATCHERY DESCRIBED.—The fish hatchery de4 scribed in subsection (a) is the Fairport National Fish

5 Hatchery located in Muscatine County, Iowa, adjacent to

6 State Highway 22 west of Davenport, Iowa, including all

7 real property, improvements to real property, and personal

8 property.

9 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop10 erty conveyed to the State of Iowa pursuant to this section

11 shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery resources

12 management, and if it is used for any other purpose all

13 right, title, and interest in and to all property conveyed

14 pursuant to this section shall revert to the United States.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, PlaintiffAppellee, v. Jose Isabel TRUJILLO-CAMPOS, aka Javier Moras-Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10297.

D.C. No. CR-02-00004-FJM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Isabel Trujillo-Campos appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Trujillo-Campos entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. Trujillo-Campos contends that it would be unfair to enforce his appellate waiver, because the district judge erred in finding that the plea was intelligently made and *928that there should be no departure for special factors outside the Sentencing Guidelines heartland. There is no evidence that Trujillo-Campos’s plea was not intelligently made, and he was sentenced consistent with the terms of the plea agreement. Because we conclude that he knowingly waived his appellate rights, we enforce Trujillo-Campos’s waiver and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *United States v. Nguyen,*285 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.2000).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### George Hall v. State.

No. 24909.

November 8, 1950.

*236
      *Roscoe Runge,*Mason, and *Robert I. Wilson,*Kerrville, for appellant.

*George*P. *Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of arson, and his penalty was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

The state’s attorney before this court has filed a brief herein which seems to have advised a proper disposal of this case, and we adopt the same as follows:

> “Appellant appeared to be in love with a woman named Alice Underwood, and while he was a married man, was attempting to get this lady to live with him. He was jealous of another man whom she subsequently married. Alice Underwood lived in a small house which belonged to her. Her daughter, a young woman about sixteen years of age, and a younger son lived with her.

> “Appellant had been threatening to burn Mrs. Underwood’s house, and perhaps to kill her. He was at her house and drunk and raising a disturbance the afternoon or evening before the fire. On this occasion she got two knives away from him, which he was threatening to use on her, and being frightened by him, she decided to take her children and spend the night with her daughter’s fiance.

> “That night, shortly before the fire, appellant was seen in the vicinity of the Underwood house. A very short space of time, less than half an hour, after he was seen in the vicinity of the Underwood house, it burst out in flames and was burned.

> “There are a number of bills of exception in the record, but appellee is of the opinion that the corpus delicti of arson is -not established by the testimony and that the case will have to be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence.”

It appears from a study of the record that no one saw appellant set the house afire; neither did anyone testify that such house was set afire; but circumstances alone are relied upon. There seems a strong possibility that same could have caught afire from a heater or pilot light therein.

*237While we have motive and the declaration of an intent such being useful, still such is not conclusive of guilt. See Massey v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 263, 226 S.W. (2d) 856; Duncan v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 668, 7 S.W. (2d) 79; Zepeda v. State, 139 Tex. Cr. R. 258, 139 S.W. (2d) 820; Burris v. State, 154 Tex. Cr. R. 399, 227 S.W. (2d) 538.

In the motion for a new trial appellant charged the jury with misconduct in that it was shown that some of the jurors failed to understand or remember the testimony correctly; that if they had correctly remembered such testimony, some of them testified that they would not have voted for a verdict of guilt. A juror cannot thus be allowed to impeach his verdict. See Hill v. State, 153 Tex. Cr. R. 105, 217 S.W. (2d) 1009, and cases there cited.

For lack of proof that the fire which destroyed this house was of incendiary origin, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-30292

_____________________

MELVIN ALLEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ED DAY, Warden, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94 CV 1977)

_________________________________________________________________

(August 9, 1995)

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Local

Rule 47.6.

A F F I R M E D.
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, David
C. Habiger, certify that:





1.
      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Annual Eeport on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 of Sonic
Solutions; and





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.





July 25,
2010





/s/
      David C. HabigerDavid
      C. HabigerPresident
      and Chief Executive
Officer