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

No. 13

- 50848 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CR

- 1949

- 1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Gutierrez

- Garcia (Gutierrez) appeals the 4 4

- m onth within

guidelines sentence he received following his guilty plea to illegal reentry

. Gutierrez argues that his sentence is greater t han necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the guidelines sentencing range was too severe in light of his difficult personal history, his benign motives for returning, and his minimal criminal history.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED July 9, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50848 Document: 00512691087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2014No. 13

- 50848
Additionally, Gutierrez asserts that his sentence is not entitled to a presumption of correctness because the illega l reentry guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not e mpirically based, as it gives undue weight to a defendant’s prior convictions

. We review s entences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the § 3 553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49

- 51 (2007). As he concedes, Gutierrez’s empirical data argument is foreclosed by this court’s precede nt. See United States v. Duarte , 569 F.3d 528, 529

- 31 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, Gutierrez’s sentence, which is in the middle of the applicable guidelines range, is presumed reasonable. See United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551 , 554 (5th Cir. 20 06 ) . His general disagreement with the propriety of his sentence and the district court ’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is insuffi cient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within

- guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Gomez

- Herrera , 523 F.3d 554, 565

- 66 (5th Cir. 2008). Gutierrez has not demonst rated that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a within

- guidelines sentence of 44 months in prison. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50848 Document: 00512691087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2014
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 29, 2015

No. 04-14-00761-CR

David CHARLES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5564

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s Reply Brief is 

GRANTED. Time is extended to October 8, 2015.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II 

Calendar No. 764

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2012

For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2004

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

OCTOBER 4, 2004

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment 

A BILL

For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR LUAY 

4 LUFTI HADAD. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Luay Lufti Hadad shall be eligible for issuance of 

8 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 

9 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
2

S 2012 RS 

1 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa 

2 under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of status 

3 to lawful permanent resident. 

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Luay Lufti Hadad 

5 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci6 fied in subsection (c), Luay Lufti Hadad shall be consid7 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall be 

8 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

9 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enact10 ment of this Act. 

11 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

12 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap13 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica14 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

15 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

16 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—

17 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res18 idence to Luay Lufti Hadad, the Secretary of State shall 

19 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur20 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im21 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the 

22 country of birth of Luay Lufti Hadad under section 

23 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli24 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
3

S 2012 RS 

1 available to natives of the country of birth of Luay Lufti 

2 Hadad under section 202(e) of that Act. 
Calendar No. 764

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2012

A BILL

For the relief of Luay Lufti Hadad. 

OCTOBER 4, 2004

Reported without amendment
II 

Calendar No. 766 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2089 

To allow aliens who are eligible for diversity visas to be eligible beyond 

the fiscal year in which they applied. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2004 

Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. MILLER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

OCTOBER 4, 2004 

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment 

A BILL 

To allow aliens who are eligible for diversity visas to be 

eligible beyond the fiscal year in which they applied. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIVERSITY LOTTERY VISAS. 

4 (a) PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING IMMIGRANT STA5 TUS.—Section 204(a)(1)(I)(ii) of the Immigration and 

6 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(ii)) is amended 

7 by striking subclause (II) and inserting the following: 
2 

S 2089 RS 

1 ‘‘(II) An immigrant visa made available under section 

2 203(c) may be issued, or adjustment of status under sec3 tion 245(a) based upon the availability of such visa may 

4 be granted, to an eligible qualified alien who has properly 

5 applied for such visa or adjustment of status in the fiscal 

6 year for which the alien was selected, notwithstanding the 

7 end of the fiscal year. Such visa or adjustment of status 

8 shall be counted against the worldwide level set forth in 

9 section 201(e) for the fiscal year for which the alien was 

10 selected, except that with respect to applications properly 

11 filed in 2003, such visa or adjustment of status shall not 

12 be counted against the worldwide level set forth in section 

13 201(e), and a visa shall be deemed to be available with 

14 respect to such applications.’’. 

15 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub16 section (a) shall apply to— 

17 (1) immigrant visas made available for fiscal 

18 year 2004 and each subsequent fiscal year; and 

19 (2) immigrant visas made available for fiscal 

20 years 1998 through 2003, provided that the denied 

21 alien applicant, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 

22 the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General 

23 moves to reopen the alien’s case pursuant to proce24 dures or instructions which shall be provided by the 

25 Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
3 

S 2089 RS 

1 State, or the Attorney General as may be appro2 priate. 
Calendar No. 766 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2089 

A BILL 

To allow aliens who are eligible for diversity visas 

applied. to be eligible beyond the fiscal year in which they 

OCTOBER 4, 2004 

Reported without amendment
#### Jones *v.*Roland and Another.

A judgment by default cannot be taken in tlie Probate Court, unless the pro-( cess has been served twenty days before the commencement of the term.

ERROR to the *Bartholomew*Probate Court.

Perkins, J.

Assumpsit on a promissory note, in the *Bartholomew*Probate Court, by *Roland*and *Troutman,*administrators of the estate of *Nelson,*deceased, against *Jones.*Judgment by default for the plaintiffs for the amount of the note.

The writ in this case is not made a part of the record; but sufficient appears therein to show that it was served on the defendant on the 24th of *July,*1845. The term of the Court to which it was returnable commenced on the 12th of *August*following, being but nineteen days from the service of the writ. The attorney for the plaintiff in error alleges that this was not sufficient notice to authorize the judgment, and relies to sustain the position upon sect. 29, ch. 39, R. S. 1843. The section is as follows: “Unless otherwise specially provided for by law, if a summons, citation, or any original or mesne process whatever, returnable to the first day of the term, is executed twenty days before the return-day thereof, and the party required to appear shall fail so to do, he shall be liable to judgment or decree by reason of his default, or to an attachment for contempt, as the case may require; and when no rules or regulations of law require a different course, such Court shall proceed therein in like manner as is prescribed or required in similar cases in the Circuit Court.” It is argued by the counsel for the defendants in this Court, that it was not the intention of the legislature, in enacting the foregoing section, that it should embrace cases like the present, and that it does not necessarily by its terms do so. The chapter of the statutes of which this section forms a part, is devoted to the organiza*273tion, jurisdiction, and practice of the Probate Courts, and it seems to us that the section is too plain in its language to admit of but one construction; and we think it applies to the present case.

*H. H. Barbour,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Herocl*and *L. F. Coppersmith,*for the defendants.

Another question has been raised. The writ issued in the cause some days before the declaration was filed. The record does not show that there was any *prcecipe*directing it. This also is insisted upon, by the plaintiff in this Court, as being erroneous. The 24th sect., ch. 39, of said statutes provides, that process may issue from the Probate Courts on the • filing of a *prcecipe,*bill, or declaration, as the case may require. The record does not show that a *prcecipe*was not filed, and we are not aware that that paper has ever been decided to be a necessary part of the record. If it is not, its filing would be presumed, the contrary not being shown; but it is not necessary to the determination of this case, that we should examine this point.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### Sir Gean AMOS, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; SeaLand Services, Inc.; Crawford & Company, Respondents.

No. 96-70988.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1999.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

It is ordered that the Opinion filed on September 1,1998, be amended to delete the final paragraph reported on page 10084 of the Slip Opinion [153 F.3d at 1054] and to substitute the following paragraph in its place:

> We remand to the ALJ with instructions to grant Amos’s request for surgery and to redetermine, consistent with this opinion, Amos’s entitlement to temporary disability benefits from February 13, 1992 pending his maximum medical improvement, and if appropriate thereafter, permanent disability benefits.

With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en bane. Fed. RApp. P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES M. HOWELL.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
DATE: June 7, 2022

The following case in which the Court of Appeals issued a published opinion ha s been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Alonzo Devon White

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0994

- 20

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Russell

on Octo ber 21, 2021

Refused ( 211059 )On May 19, 2022 the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the following case, which had

been appealed from this Court

1

. Chesapeake Hospital Authority, etc.

v. State Health Commissioner, et al.

Record No. 0116

- 20

- 1

Memorandum opinion rendered by Judge Athey on October 27, 2020

Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and matter remanded to this Court

for remand to the Commissioner for reconsideration

( 201510 )
# Apollo 13 MCC DURING RECOVERY

MCC DURING RECOVERY 

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s70-35144/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Apollo 13
TakenApril 1, 1970ProducerJSCSize1920x1268pxPIA Numbers70-35144The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 29, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: August 13, 2004

                                      BY:   /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                             David J. Mickelson
                                             Executive Vice President,
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             and Chief Operating Officer
#### CHEEK v. SUTTON

No. 364P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 706

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 25 September 2001.
The crew:

STS-135 crew members, from left, are Commander Chris Ferguson, Pilot Doug Hurley, 

and Mission Specialists Sandy Magnus and Rex Walheim. They are wearing training 

versions of their shuttle launch-and-entry suits. 

The mission:

Space shuttle Atlantis’ STS-135 mission will be NASA’s last space shuttle flight. 

Atlantis will carry four astronauts and the multi-purpose logistics module Raffaello 

to the International Space Station. 

During the 12-day flight, mission specialists will use the shuttle’s robotic arm to lift 

Raffaello from the shuttle’s payload bay and hand it off to the station’s robotic arm 

for temporary attachment to the Harmony node segment. Raffaello contains logistics, 

supplies and hardware for transfer to the station. Atlantis also will carry a system to 

investigate the potential for robotically refueling existing satellites and return a failed 

ammonia pump to help NASA better understand the failure mechanism and improve 

pump designs for future systems.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-73,697-10

IN RE RAUL DAVID JACKSON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NOS. W06-00448-K(B), W06-00445-K(B), W06-00450-K(B) & W06-00453-K(B) 

IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed applications for writs of habeas corpus in

Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County and that District Clerk has not sent the trial court’s

February 18, 2016 findings of fact and conclusions of law to him.

“When any pleadings, objections, motions, affidavits, exhibits, proposed or entered findings

of fact and conclusions of law, or other orders are filed or made a part of the record, the district clerk

shall immediately send a copy to all parties in the case.” TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(2). Respondent,

the District Clerk of Dallas County, shall respond and state whether she has sent the trial court’s
2

February 18, 2016 findings and conclusions to Relator. If she has, she shall also state when she sent

the findings and conclusions to Relator. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall

be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall

be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: April 20, 2016

Do not publish
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

February 6, 2023

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space 

Transportation Association (STA) Luncheon on February 7, 2023

On February 7, 2023, the Space Transportation Association (STA), a nonprofit organization 

under 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a lunch at the Capitol Hill Club, in 

Washington, DC, starting at 11:30 a.m. The guest speaker is Jody Singer, Director, Marshall 

Space Flight Center and Jim Free, Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems 

Development, NASA.

Approximately 40 people are expected to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of views or 

interests and will include members from the legislative branch, industry representatives,

academia, employees of Federal agencies, and media. The estimated cost of the event, 

including all food and beverages, is approximately $25 per person (no cost for attendees). 

STA is in control of the planning and invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will 

allow NASA attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA programs. I find 

that the event meets the requirements of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. 

§ 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the 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 who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the STA, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or 
2

administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local 

ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

Adam F. Greenstone
#### SPEARMAN v. SPEARMAN

No. 354P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 347

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 16 August 2001.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. JA M E S R A L P H H E N D E R S H O T , II I, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 30002 D . C. N o . CR- 0 6 - 0 0 0 3 2 - CCL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na C ha r l e s C . L ove l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y19, 2010 ** B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an dW A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a m e s R a l ph H e nde r s hot , I I I appe a l s f r om hi s 16- m onth s e nt e nc e of im p r is o n m e n t a n dth r e e - y e a rte rm o f s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e im p o s e df o llo w in g h is j ury - tr i a l c onvi c t i on f

ors oc i a l s e c ur i tyf

r aud i n vi ol a t i on of

42 U . S . C . § 408( a ) ( 4) 

# FI LED AU G 02 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 30002 2 a nd the f tof f e de r a l gove rnm e ntm one yi n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 641. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . C ontr a ryt o H e nde r s hot ’ s c ont e nt i on, the i m pos i t i on of hi s t e rm of supervi se d rel ea se do es no tvi ol at e the t erm s of U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 1(d). W e al so rej ectH en d ersh o t ’ s co n t en t i o n th ath i s t erm o f su p erv i sedrel ease w a s n o t au th o r iz e db ys ta tu te . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(a) (“ T he court. . . m ay i ncl ud e a s apartof the se nt ence . . . a t erm of supervi se d rel ea se af t er im p r is o n m e n t” ) ; s e e al

s o 18 U . S . C . § 3583( b) ( f oraC l a s s C orC l a s s D f e l ony , not m ore than three ye ar s of s up ervi se d rel ea se m aybe i m po se d). A F F I R M E D .