alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41516 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALVARO PRADO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-349-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alvaro Prado-Ortiz (Prado) appeals the sentence he received for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Prado argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing each of his prior state felony convictions for possession of controlled substances as “aggravated felonies” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Prado’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997). Prado argues that thisNo. 05-41516 -2- circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Prado also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Prado’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Prado argues that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Prado properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                      -107-


                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of ART Advanced Research
Technologies Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Micheline Bouchard, Chief Executive Officer of ART Advanced Research
Technologies Inc., certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

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

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ART
Advanced Research Technologies Inc.

Date: March 31, 2006

                                        ART ADVANCED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGIES INC.


                                        (s) Micheline Bouchard
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Micheline Bouchard
                                        Title: President and Chief Executive
                                               Officer
#### EPIC-SCHWALJE CONSTRUCTION v. STONY BROOK REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY.

July 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Edward E. Cohen, Chairman of the Board of the Partnership's general partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 results of operations of
         the Partnership.




/s/ Edward E. Cohen


Edward E. Cohen
Chairman of the Managing Board of the General Partner
March 28, 2003
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW J. MOSLEY.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

April 28, 2009 

0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

138111 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138111 

 COA: 286873 

Oakland CC: 07-008725-AR 

KAREN CHABAN BENTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2008 

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.
Reply to Attn of:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001 ?

March 2, 2020
General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the
SpaceX Reception on March 9. 2020

On March 9, 2020, SpaceX will host a reception at the Wild Days Restaurant in the Eaton
Hotel in Washington, D.C. starting at 8:00 p.m. The event will provide a forum for informal
discussion with the attendees of the Satellite 2020 Conference on various aspects of space
policy and activity will be discussed. SpaceX is in control of the organizing, planning and
invitations for the reception.

Approximately 200 people are expected to attend the reception. Attendees will have a
diversity of views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies,
representatives from the legislative branch of the government, academia, industry, media,
and members of the public. The estimated cost for the reception, including all food and
beverages, is approximately $100 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA
attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA missions and programs and keep
abreast of commercial space sector developments. I find that this event meets the
requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend these
events because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. Accordingly, NASA
employees who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests of SpaceX
may accept an invitation for free attendance to this event. In those circumstances, I find
that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the individual may be,
or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.

However, NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics
pledge under Executive Order 13770 may only attend the reception if they reimburse the
organizers the fair market value of the event. Additionally, NASA employees who have a
significant role in any pending matter affecting the interests of SpaceX, such as procurement


duties, program management, or negotiating or administering a Space Act Agreement, should
seek a separate determination from their local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept
the invitation for this event.

Zab 7

Adam F, Greenstone
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HAKIEM ANDERSON

, §

§ No. 64 , 2021

Defendant Below, Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, § C.A. No. 15080154 76 A& B

§

Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

Submitted: March 2 3 , 202 2

Decided: April 13

, 202 2

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice ; VALIHURA

, and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 13th day of April 202 2 , having considered this matter on the briefs and oral

arguments of the parties and the record below, and having concluded that the same should

be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its

Amended Order dated February 2

, 2021, and the Commissioner ’ s Report and

R ecommendation dated Oct ober 19, 2020 which the Superior Court ado pted

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment s of the Superior Court

be and the same hereby are AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
## Geostationary Platforms

New sensors on geostationary satellites have great promise for planetary monitoring. In particular, the new capabilities of NOAA’s GOES and JAXA’s Himawari have significant spectral, radiometric, temporal and scan rate improvements. For example, GOES sensors have three times more spectral channels, four times better spatial resolution and five times faster scan rate than earlier versions.

The graphs below compare spectral band positions across these sensors alongside those of polar-orbiting missions for land surface monitoring, NASA’s MODIS and NOAA’s VIIRS.  The black line is solar transmittance and radiance from HITRAN.
      - ABI – Advanced Baseline Imager on GOES-16/17 (United States)
      - AHI – Advanced Himawari Imager on Himawari 8/9 (Japan)
      - AMI – Advanced Meteorological Imager on GEO-KOMPSAT2 (South Korea)
      - FCI – Flexible Combined Imager on MTG (Europe)
      - AGRI – Advanced Geosynchronous Radiation Imager on Fengyun-4 (China)
      - MODIS – Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (United States)
      - VIIRS – Visible/Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (United States)

## **GeoNEX Common Grid**

We define a common tiled grid in the geographic (latitude/longitude) projection for the GeoNEX products. Spanning from 60◦N and 180◦W at the upper-left corner to 60◦S and 180◦E at the lower-right corner, the grid was divided into 6◦ × 6◦ tiles that were numbered from 0 to 59 in the longitudinal (horizontal) direction and from 0 to 19 in the latitudinal (vertical) direction. Pixels (grid cells) were created at regular 0.005◦, 0.01◦, and 0.02◦ resolutions, where a 0.02◦ pixel contained exactly four 0.01◦ pixels and a 0.01◦ pixel contained exactly four 0.005◦ pixels. The layout and the resolutions of the pixels were in correspondence to the three native spatial resolutions (i.e., 500 m, 1 km, and 2 km) common to the geostationary satellite data in different spectral bands. The geographic projection of the grid was chosen to facilitate intercomparisons between geostationary and polar-orbiting sensors.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT 

LAURIE BORDOCK, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant, 

v. 

ARROWHEAD MALL, 

 Defendant–Appellee.

No. 10-7045

(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00186-RAW)

((E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. 

Laurie Bordock appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil rights claim as 

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Exercising jurisdiction under § 1291, we affirm. 

 Bordock filed a complaint alleging that Arrowhead Mall security violated her civil 

rights by removing her from the mall because she was homeless. Pursuant to its 

screening function under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court determined that her complaint 

was frivolous because 42 U.S.C. § 1983—the statute ostensibly giving rise to Bordock’s 

 *

 The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; 

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th 

Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 3, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-7045 Document: 01018469862 Date Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 1
-2- 

claim—extends only to violations committed under color of state law. See Nat’l 

Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 191 (1988). Because the 

Arrowhead Mall is a private entity, Bordock’s complaint lacked “an arguable basis either 

in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

On appeal, Bordock fails to advance any reasoned argument challenging the 

district court’s reasoning. Observing no error in the district court’s conclusion, we 

AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

 Carlos F. Lucero 

 Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 10-7045 Document: 01018469862 Date Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27729]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 27, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Aslin Opportunity Fund BK, LP, Cape Haze, Florida, to acquire 
46.7 percent of the voting shares of Aslin Group, Inc., parent of 
Alterra Bank, both in Overland Park, Kansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 29, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-27729 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**CERTIFICATON
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**





**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to**


**§
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
      Quarterly Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ending March 31, 2007, (the ”Report”), I, William P. Hales, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:





(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 results of operations of the
                Company.














/s/
      William P. Hales


William
      P. Hales


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)














May
      29,
      2007








A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc.
        and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                         19,804
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,804
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1100
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       22
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,804
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5253)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5253)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5253)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27369]

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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collections to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-3086. Copies of submission may 
be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Number: OMB 0412-0565.
    Form Number: N/A.
    Title: Applicant's Certification that it Does not Support Terrorist 
Organizations or tIndividuals.
    Type of Submission: Renewal of Information Collection.
    Purpose: The United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID) needs to require applicants for assistance to certify that it 
does not and will not engage in financial transactions with, and does 
not and will not provide material support and resources to individuals 
or organizations that engage in terrorism. The purpose of this 
requirement is to assure that USAID does not directly provide support 
to such organizations or individuals, and to assure that recipients are 
aware of these requirements when it considers individuals or 
organizations are subrecipients.

Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 2,000.
    Total annual responses: 4,000.
    Total annual hours requested: 1,500 hours.

    Dated: October 21, 2010.
Beth Salamanca,
Acting Director, Office of Management Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-27369 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., CELLTRION, 

INC., APOTEX INC.,

Appellees

______________________

2023-1395, 2023-1396

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00880, IPR2021-00881, IPR2022-00257, IPR2022-00258, 

IPR2022-00298, IPR2022-00301.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties, having so agreed, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The above-captioned appeals are dismissed under Fed. 

R. App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear their own costs.

July 9, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 9, 2024 

Case: 23-1395 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2024
#### Jesse TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-6942.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

*277Jesse Trujillo, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Trujillo appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Trujillo v. Young,*No. CA-02-1083-7 (W.D.Va. June 5, 2003). 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.*