alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11411

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSÉ PADILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-114-2-Y

September 7, 2000

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Juan José Padilla appea ls his conviction following a

conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. Padilla argues that the district court erred when it

denied his motion to suppress cocaine seized from his car after a

traffic stop. The testimony at the evidentiary hearing indicates

that the information available to the officers gave them reasonable2

suspicion to think that Padilla was dealing cocaine. Thus, the

officers had reasonable suspicion to make a traffic stop under

Terry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968), thereby detaining Padilla

until that suspicion could be confirmed or refuted. U nited States

v. Shabazz , 993 F.2d 431, 435 (5th Cir. 1993).

Padilla contends that the length of time–approximately fortyfive minutes–between the initial stop and the arrival of the dog

transformed the Terry stop into a full-blown arrest without

pro bable cause. Padilla’s detention lasted no longer than

necessary to effect the purpose of the stop–to identify the package

Garcia had left with fromthe Schwartz house. U nited States v.

Sharpe

, 105 S.Ct. 1568 (1985); United States v. Zukas

, 843 F.2d

179, 182 (5th Cir. 1988). Once the dog alerted to the car, the

officers had probably cause to arrest Padilla. See United States

v. Zucco , 71 F.3d 188, 191-92 (5th Cir. 1995).

Padilla a rgues that the district court should not have

admitted as expert testimony the testimony of Officer Tebay, one of

the officers who participated in his surveillance. Padilla did not

specify this as an issue for appeal in his conditional guilty plea.

The issue is, therefore, waived. United States v. Wise , 179 F.3d

184, 186 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 170 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 170

   Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response to the 
           President's call for a national dialogue on race.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 1997

Mr. Filner (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Waters, Mrs. 
  Mink of Hawaii, and Mr. Torres) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing support for a National Day of Unity in response to the 
           President's call for a national dialogue on race.

Whereas the President has called for a national dialogue on race;
Whereas a group of San Diego, California, business, civic, and religious leaders 
        has called for a National Day of Unity;
Whereas the best way to meet the President's challenge is to establish a 
        National Day of Unity when all Americans can celebrate their common 
        heritage and shared destiny;
Whereas such a day would be a means to build a bridge that would finally cross 
        the racial divides of our Nation, and to achieve the unity our Nation 
        desires and needs; and
Whereas no particular day can close all racial divisions within our Nation, but 
        by coming together on a National Day of Unity, we can focus the dialogue 
        the President seeks, and that the Nation needs: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That a Day of National Unity should be established in 
order to facilitate a national dialogue on race, and so that Americans 
can celebrate their unity and their commitment to liberty and justice 
for all.
                                 <all>
```
#### D. P. Maloney *v.*John P. Balee, etc.

Estoppel — Equitable Principles — Innocent Parties.

It is not consistent with the principles of equity that appellant, after having permitted the legal title to remain in Balee for ten years without any effort to divest him of the title, should he permitted to come in and defeat the claims of Balee’s creditors and other innocent parties who trusted him on the faith that he was the owner of the land.

APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 12, 1871.

*Rodman and Eaves, for appellant.*

*Vance, Turner & Trafton, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It does not seem consistent with the principles of equity that appellant after having permitted the legal title to remain in Balee for ten years and more without any effort to redeem the land, or to divest Balee of the title, should be permitted to come in and defeat the claims of Balee’s creditors and other innocent parties who trusted him on the faith that he was the owner of the land.

What might be the rights of Elnora B. Maloney we make no suggestions as she is not an appellant.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Western Division

Stephen Boyd

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:20−cv−50156

Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

Meat Head Brothers Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, July 16, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr:Upon receipt of the

plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice [17] pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A)(i), all scheduled hearings and deadlines are stricken and any pending motions

are denied as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice(air, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 3:20-cv-50156 Document #: 18 Filed: 07/16/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:57
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26646]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR; ASLBP No. 10-900-01-LR-BD01]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 
Plant, Units 1 and 2); Notice of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Reconstitution

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.313(c) and 2.321(b), the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board (Board) in the above-captioned Diablo Canyon Nuclear 
Power Plant, Units 1and 2 license renewal proceeding is hereby 
reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Gary S. Arnold to 
serve on the Board in place of Administrative Judge Paul B. Abramson.
    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall continue 
to be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR 2.302 
et seq.

     Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of November 2014.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2014-26646 Filed 11-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 861

To authorize a farmer or rancher whose bid for reenrollment of land into

the conservation reserve is rejected to unilaterally extend the contract

for a final year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. MORAN of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To authorize a farmer or rancher whose bid for reenrollment

of land into the conservation reserve is rejected to unilaterally extend the contract for a final year.

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

3 SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN EXPIRING

4 CONSERVATION RESERVE CONTRACTS.

5 (a) EXTENSION AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

6 section 727 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food

7 and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appro8 priations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104–180; 110 Stat.
2

•HR 861 IH

1 1600), in the case of a conservation reserve program con2 tract described in subsection (b), the owner or operator

3 of a farm or ranch who is the party to the contract may

4 extend the contract for one year if the owner or operator

5 agrees to accept a rental rate not to exceed the lower of—

6 (1) the existing rental rate under the contract;

7 or

8 (2) the maximum county rental rate established

9 by the Secretary of Agriculture for the county in

10 which the land covered by the contract is located.

11 (b) ELIGIBLE CONTRACTS DESCRIBED.—A conserva12 tion reserve program contract referred to in subsection (a)

13 means a contract that—

14 (1) was entered into under subchapter B of

15 chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Se16 curity Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.);

17 (2) expires in 1997; and

18 (3) covers land, regarding which the Secretary

19 of Agriculture rejects a bid to reenroll the land in

20 the conservation reserve.

Æ
#### Elizabethtown & Paducah Ry. Co. *v.*Geo. Stickler.

Eminent Domain — Measure of Recovery for Land Taken.

The judgment is for more than the entire value of the land taken and the fifteen acres cut off by the road, and exceeds the entire value according to the assessment made by appellee.

Held, that testing the measure of recovery by appellant’s heirs v. Helm’s heirs the damages allowed are unreasonable and excessive.

HARDIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.

April 19, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay :

It seems to this court that the judgment in this -case ought not to be allowed to stand. Stickler assessed his tract of land at about twenty dollars per acre. Allowing it to be.worth -double that amount, the three acres taken by the railway company would be worth $120. The fifteen acres separated from the main tract by the road would be worth $600. The judgment is for $464, more than 3-5 of the entire value of the three acres taken, and the fifteen acres cut off by the road, and greatly exceeding the entire value ¡thereof, according to the assessment made by appellee when acting under oath.

Testing the measure of recovery by the rule laid down in the case of the *Appellant’s Heirs v. Helm’s Heirs,*this day decided, it is manifest that the damages allowed appellee are unreasonable and excessive.

*166
      *Pindell, for appellants.*

*Montgomery, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment must 'be reversed. The cause is remanded for a new trial, upon the principles laid down in the opinion of this court in the above named case.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6497

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DUANE MONTRIK BURTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-00-105, CA-02-182-7-F) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Montrik Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Duane Montrik Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,545,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,600
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,625,651
<PP&E>                                         170,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,730,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,628
<BONDS>                                          2,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,542
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,587,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,730,572
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  255,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (961,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (961,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (961,900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FelCorLodging Limited Partnership;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   Date: November 5, 2004 */s/Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr.* Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr. Chief Executive Officer of FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated, as general partner of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Apollo Resources International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I J. Mark Ariail,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

3.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

4.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ J. Mark Ariail      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| J. Mark Ariail          |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
| August 24, 2006         |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
EXHIBIT 32.37

 

 

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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Paxton, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

/s/ Gary L. Paxton

Gary L. Paxton

Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and will be retained by Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.