alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00284-CV

TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-14-289

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 28, 2016

DISMISSED 

The appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for mootness. The motion contains 

a certificate of service to appellee, and a certificate of conference indicating that appellee does not 

oppose the motion. We therefore grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a), 

43.2(f). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who have incurred them.

PER CURIAM
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,130] 

                    By application submitted via facsimile on August 28, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on July 28, 2008. The Notice of Determination was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 12,  2008 (73 FR 46924).                 

The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of residential lighting fixtures did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information pertaining to the imports of lighting fixtures and the impact it has on subject firm production. 

The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. 

## Conclusion 

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of September 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-21842 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RICHARD N. MURO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR118

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial [24]. 

Counsel requests additional time to complete plea negotiations. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [24] is granted, as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for September 19, 2023, is continued to November 28,

2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as 

a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date 

and November 28, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation 

of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).

3. No further continuances will be granted without requesting a hearing 

before the undersigned magistrate judge.

DATED: September 1, 2023

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00118-BCB-MDN Doc # 25 Filed: 09/01/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 64
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 LOUIE CASIAS, 2 Protestant-Appellant, 3
v. NO. A-1-CA-36489 4 5 NEW MEXICO TAXATION AND 6 REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 7 Respondent-Appellee. 8 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTEST OF LOUIE CASIAS 9 TO NOTICE OF CLAIM OF TAX LIEN ISSUED UNDER 10 LETTER ID NO. L1687629360. 11 APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICE 12 Chris Romero, Hearing Officer 13 Wayne G. Chew, P.C. 14 Wayne G. Chew 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellant 17 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 18 Jama E. Fisk, Special Assistant Attorney General 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellee 212 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 VANZI, Chief Judge. 2 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 4 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 5 {2} AFFIRMED. 6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

_______________________________ 8 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 9 WE CONCUR : 10

_________________________________ 11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12

_________________________________ 13 JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge 14
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1260

       To prohibit the cloning of humans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            March, 28, 2001

  Mr. Kerns introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To prohibit the cloning of humans, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ban on Human Cloning Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION REGARDING CLONING OF HUMANS.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a 
human cloning procedure with the intent of implanting the resulting 
cellular product into a uterus.
    (b) Cloning Procedure.--A person shall be considered to have 
engaged in a human cloning procedure for purposes of subsection (a) if 
the person transfers the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an egg 
cell from which the nucleus has been removed.
    (c) Criminal Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall 
be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned 
not more than 5 years, or both.
    (d) Effective Date.--This Act takes effect upon the expiration the 
30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-01-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

The defendant has filed another eleventh hour request

seeking to retain the services of a pharmacologist/psychiatrist

(Dr. Alec Bodkin) (document no. 83). The defendant claims that

witness Ms. Poirier slipped an unknown substance into an

alcoholic beverage that the defendant was drinking and that his

behavior became erratic and abnormal afterwards. Dr. Bodkin, for

a fee of between $3,000 and $5,000 is supposed to determine

whether the defendant’s abnormal behavior would have been

consistent with his having ingested any of the narcotic

substances which were supposedly accessible to Ms. Poirier at the

time, including but not limited to Paxil and Vicodin. The

defendant does not include any information concerning who Dr.

Bodkin is or what his qualifications may be to render such an

opinion. Therefore, given the late timing of this request, the

lack of any information concerning Dr. Bodkin’s qualifications,

and the rather open-ended nature of the proposed evaluation, the

court denies the request. The court again notes that the

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 84 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 2
2

defendant has been well aware of Ms. Poirier’s background and his

defense for many months and has waited until the last minute to

make requests of this nature in what is apparently an effort to

further delay the trial.

However, assuming that Dr. Bodkin is qualified, and assuming

there is some evidentiary basis that can be developed at trial,

the defendant may subpoena Dr. Bodkin to testify, provided his

testimony is deemed to be relevant and material. The court will

approve reasonable expenses in connection with any such trial

testimony but not the $3,000 to $5,000 requested by the

defendant. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

January 27, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 84 Filed 01/27/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1124

To authorize the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Government of

Cuba to provide for increased cooperation between Cuba and the United

States on drug interdiction efforts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To authorize the Director of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Government of Cuba to provide for increased

cooperation between Cuba and the United States on drug

interdiction efforts.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds the following:

5 (1) Illegal drug abuse is a national security

6 issue affecting every region, economic group, race

7 and religion in the United States.
2

•HR 1124 IH

1 (2) Drug abuse-related crime is costing the

2 United States economy at least $5,000,000,000 per

3 year.

4 (3) At least 30 percent of the illegal drugs that

5 enter the United States are transported through the

6 Caribbean region.

7 (4) The airspace and territorial waters of Cuba

8 are attractive havens for drug smugglers and are

9 vital to flow of illegal drugs to the United States.

10 (5) There is no evidence of the involvement of

11 the Government of Cuba in drug trafficking.

12 (6) Although Cuba is receiving limited drug

13 interdiction assistance from the United Kingdom,

14 France, and other allies of the United States, Cuba

15 is unable to control the movement of illegal drugs in

16 its country.

17 (7) Cuban authorities have cooperated with

18 United States authorities on a case-by-case basis to

19 interdict illegal drug shipments.

20 (8) The Government of Cuba has expressed its

21 desire to expand cooperation with the United States

22 on drug interdiction efforts.

23 (9) The flow of illegal drugs through the Carib24 bean region cannot be stopped without cooperation

25 from the Government of Cuba.
3

•HR 1124 IH

1 (10) Numerous United States law enforcement

2 authorities have expressed the need for increased co3 operation with Cuban authorities on this matter.

4 SEC. 2. NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA

5 TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED COOPERATION

6 ON DRUG INTERDICTION EFFORTS.

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Di8 rector of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is

9 authorized to enter into negotiations with representatives

10 of the Government of Cuba to provide for increased co11 operation between Cuba and the United States on drug

12 interdiction efforts.

Æ
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Porta Systems Corp. (the
      “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward B.
      Kornfeld, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      do
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:





(1) the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2) the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                November 13, 2007
            By
            /s/Edward
                B. KornfeldEdward
                B. Kornfeld
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              and
                Chief Financial Officer




This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Ex
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1251

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of

1992 to increase the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel

Basin demonstration project.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mrs. NAPOLITANO (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. DREIER, Ms.

ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. HORN) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to increase the Federal share of

the costs of the San Gabriel Basin demonstration project.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF SAN GA4 BRIEL BASIN DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

5 Section 1631(d)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Au6 thorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C. 390h–

7 13) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘In the case’’ and inserting ‘‘(A)

9 Subject to subparagraph (B), in the case’’; and
2

•HR 1251 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(B) In the case of the San Gabriel Basin demonstra3 tion project authorized by section 1614, the Federal share

4 of the cost of such project may not exceed the sum deter5 mined by adding—

6 ‘‘(i) the amount that applies to that project

7 under subparagraph (A); and

8 ‘‘(ii) $12,500,000.’’.

Æ
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 24, 2006

Before

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ] Appeal from the United

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ] States District Court for

 ] the Eastern District of

No. 04-1665 v. ] Wisconsin.

 ] 

ERIC R. BESTE, ] No. 02 CR 75

 Defendant-Appellant. ] 

 ] Rudolph T. Randa,

 ] Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Eric Beste was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to

distribute and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of cocaine in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). On appeal, he argued that the district

court erred by sentencing him under the mandatory sentencing guidelines, see

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (7th Cir. 2005). We ordered a limited remand

under the terms set forth in United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005),

for a determination whether the district court would have imposed the same

sentence had it understood that the guidelines were advisory. 

The district judge has concluded that Beste should be resentenced in light of

Booker. We invited the parties to file position statements concerning the proper

disposition of the case, and neither party responded. In light of the district court’s

determination, IT IS ORDERED that Beste’s sentence is VACATED, and the

case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
**
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT**

**TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Arturo Rodriguez, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form10-K/A of Aterian, Inc.; and 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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. 

Date: March 28, 2022 

 

/s/ Arturo Rodriguez
Arturo Rodriguez
Chief Financial Officer

*(Principal FinancialOfficer)*
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         6,513,412
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      78,652
<MORTGAGE>                                     539,070
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      445
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               7,611,725
<CASH>                                          99,987
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               4,380
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         167,313
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,317,063
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              7,057,809
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  14,539
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          107,650
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                141,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          230,963
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,747
<OTHER-SE>                                     853,482
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,317,063
<PREMIUMS>                                     115,655
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            375,991
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,390
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     334,590
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     38,848
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            56,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
AO 472 (Rev. 11/16), modified by NED (9/17) 

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 8:23mj313

SALOME JUAREZ-CASTRO, ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

Defendant

Part I - Eligibility for Detention

Upon the

☒ Motion of the Government or Court’s own motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2),

the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. 

This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in 

addition to any other findings made at the hearing.

Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)

Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention

After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and the information presented at the detention hearing, 

the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:

☒ By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure

the safety of any other person and the community.

☒ By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the 

defendant’s appearance as required.

In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention include the following:

☒ Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted

☒ Prior criminal history

☒ History of alcohol or substance abuse

☒ Lack of legal status in the United States

☒ Subject to removal or deportation after serving any period of incarceration

☒ Background information unknown or unverified

☒ The nature and circumstances of the offense charged.

☒ The nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant’s release.

OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION:

Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention

8:23-mj-00313-MDN Doc # 11 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 15
Page 2 of 2

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative 

for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or 

being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation 

with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the person 

in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance 

in connection with a court proceeding.

Date: 5/26/2023 s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00313-MDN Doc # 11 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 16