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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40205

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LINO HERNANDEZ-BENITEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CR-1310-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lino HernandezBenitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Benitez has filed a motion for the 

appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-40205

2

Benitez’s motion. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. To the extent HernandezBenitez asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion, the 

record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the 

claim; we therefore decline to consider it without prejudice to collateral review. 

See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hernandez-Benitez’s motion for the 

appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

 Case: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
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.                  

###### United States Postal Service Board of Governors

# Times and Dates:

6 p.m., Monday, June 22, 2009; 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 23, 2009; and 8 a.m., Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

# Place:

Washington, DC., at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

## Monday, June 22 at 6 p.m. (Closed)

1. Financial Matters.

2. Strategic Issues.

3. Pricing.

4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.

5. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board Governance.

## Tuesday, June 23 at 10 a.m. (Closed)

Continuation of Monday's agenda.

## Wednesday, June 24 at 8 a.m. (Closed)—If Needed

Continuation of Monday's agenda.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-14177 Filed 6-12-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3325 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the waiver of the 

collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 6, 2010 

Mr. BEGICH (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and 

telemedicine visits of veterans, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE COLLECTION OF COPAY4 MENTS FOR TELEHEALTH AND TELEMEDI5 CINE VISITS OF VETERANS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 17 of 

7 title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 

8 section 1722A the following new section: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3325 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1722B. Copayments: waiver of collection of copay2 ments for telehealth and telemedicine 

3 visits of veterans 

4 ‘‘The Secretary may waive the imposition or collec5 tion of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits 

6 of veterans under the laws administered by the Sec7 retary.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 at the beginning of chapter 17 of such title is amended 

10 by inserting after the item relating to section 1722A the 

11 following new item: 

‘‘1722B. Copayments: waiver of collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of veterans.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-05987; No. 333-59941; No. 33-62887; and No.
33-69306) of Michael Baker Corporation of our report dated March 15, 2002
relating to the financial statements, which appears in the 2001 Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 15, 2002
relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 21, 2002
#### STIFFLER v. DIEHL et al.

Civil Action No. 5999.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 13, 1947.

*463Dickie, Robinson & McCamey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Paul Andrews Koontz, of Bedford, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

A motion has been filed on behalf of each defendant wherein the court is asked to dismiss the action because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and'to dismiss it as to each defendant substantially because of misjoinder of the parties defendant.

On argument upon the motions the defendants further attacked the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief as prayed by him, that a proper tender was not set forth, that the plaintiff, not having been named in the sealed options, the subject of suit, has no right to institute the action.

Both plaintiff and defendants have overlooked the fact that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, have taken away the distinction between actions at law and actions in equity. The option given by each defendant sets forth $300 per share as the amount of damages in case of default in the delivery of the stock. Whether the action will be held to be at law or for equitable relief may depend upon the testimony adduced.

As to the tender, in the pleading said to be ■“on or about” the day for final delivery, the counsel for plaintiff asserts his ability to amend, and we therefore pass by this claim at present.

Under the Federal Rules, the court is of opinion that the plaintiff may institute the action in his own name.

This brings us to the one question which gave the court some concern, namely, the charge of misjoinder. It did not consider the dismissal of the action, but only whether a severance should be granted. See Rule 21 of the Rules of Federal Procedure; Alabama Independent Service Station Ass’n, Inc., v. Shell Petroleum Corporation et al., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 386; Federal Housing Administrator v. Christianson, D.C, 26 F.Supp. 419.

It seems somewhat doubtful if the defendants should be joined in the present action under the terms of Rule 20. So far as appears from the complaint, the options were obtained from the defendants at different times and different places. The question is whether the cause of action arose “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions * * * or if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise.” It was made apparent that the defense will be fraud on the part of the persons who obtained the options. Also, the testimony of plaintiff in support of his claim for equitable relief would necessarily be the same. In view of this situation time will be saved by one trial, and the defendants cannot be hurt by joining them as defendants rather than causing the cases to be tried one after the other. Therefore the court will not order a severance.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SERGIO IVAN CERVANTESMORALES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10057

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01492-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 19, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 

Sergio Ivan Cervantes-Morales appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for reentry after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

FILED

DEC 06 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S. 738 (1967), Cervantes-Morales’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there

are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. 

We have provided Cervantes-Morales the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental

brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10057
#### Philip F. Hanlon, Appellant, v Michael D. Healy, Respondent.

Submitted February 11, 2013;

decided April 2, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) 1ST QTR 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      821
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         35
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,157
<PP&E>                                           4,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,624
<BONDS>                                          1,134
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        452
<OTHER-SE>                                         961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   689
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     49
<INCOME-TAX>                                        19
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 30
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        30
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      23




























Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The
      Board
      of Directors and Stockholders of


The
      Fairchild Corporation:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
      33-38302, 333-49779, 333-62037, 333-97703, 333-82828, 333-16821, 333-70387,
      333-70673, and
      333-54158) on Form S-8 of The Fairchild Corporation of our report dated August
      13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of The Fairchild
      Corporation and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2006 and 2005, and the related
      consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows, for
      each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2006, and related
      financial statement schedule, which report appears in the September 30, 2006,
      annual report on Form 10-K of The Fairchild Corporation.





As
      discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has
      restated its consolidated financial statements as of September 3, 2005 and
      for
      each of the years ended September 30, 2005 and 2004.




/s/
      KPMG
      LLP




McLean,
      Virginia


August
      13, 2007
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements and Prospectuses of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company on Forms S-8
(File Nos. 33-56084, 33-59545, and 333-45051) and Forms S-3 (File Nos.
33-49801, 33-45260, 33-33559, 33-57658, 333-22697, 333-32311, 333-59601, and
333-66015) of our report dated January 15, 1999 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule of
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                        /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                        ------------------------------
                                        PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 18, 1999

                                       80
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30 1996, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          89,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,199,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,227,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,863,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          777,800
<BONDS>                                      3,375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,863,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,527,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,687,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,700)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                23,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             226,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (377,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (377,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (377,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
97-378.

#### State v. Cheirs.

Mahoning App. No. 95 C.A. 139. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Resnick and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
#### In the Matter of Benjamin V.R. Conlon, an Attorney, Appellant. Committee on Professional Standards, Respondent.

Decided June 12, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
AFFIRMED: Opinion Filed October 31, 2012.

In The

(Luurt uf Apj.ira1

Fift1! Db.itrirt uf ixa; at Ja11zu

No. 05-1 1-00734-CR

RICCO LACHARLES EPPS, Appellant

V.

TI-IE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-01059-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges. Richter, and Lang

Opinion By Justice Lang

Ricco LaCharles Epps appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. The State did

not file a brief in this appeal. in one issue, Epps argues the trial court erred when it found him guilty

because no indictment or information was filed against him. Subsequent to filing his brief Epps

informed this Court that the information was accidently omitted from his copy ofthe clerk’s record

and his sole issue on appeal is “now totally without merit.” Accordingly, we dismiss Epps’s sole
issue as moot. Since there are no other issues in this appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

tdjudicitinu nilt.

/

/ /,-

DOUG LAS S :LANG

JUTlCE /

Do Not Publish

l’ix. R .i\PP. P.

I lO734FUO5
niirt nf Apprah

.!Fiftii Jitrirt nf 1ixai at Jat1u

JUDGMENT

RICCO LACHARLES EPPS, Appellant

No. 05-1 1-00734-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 194th Judicial District

Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.CLNo.

F09-() I 059-M).

Opinion delivered by .Justice Lang, Justices

Bridges and Richter participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is

AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered October 3 1, 201 2.

/

/

//

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTIcE 1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Termination of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Section 596 of Public Law 110-417, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as 
amended), the Sunshine in the Government Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as 
amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.65, the Department of Defense gives notice 
that it is terminating the Board of Advisors to the President Naval War 
College.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee 
Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128.

    Dated: June 4, 2009.
Morgan E. Frazier,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-14101 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Riley BRIONES, Jr., also known as Spitz Mr, Defendant—Appellant. *802United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Riley Briones, Sr., also known as Joker, Defendant—Appellant.

Nos. 03-16300, 03-16302.

D.C. Nos. CV-99-02094-RCB04, CR-96-00464-RCB-04.

D.C. Nos. CV-99-02169-RCB03, CR-96-00464-RCB-03.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 23, 2006.

Patrick Joseph Schneider, USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff — Appellee.

Riley Briones, Jr., also known as Spitz Mr., USPB — U.S. Penitentiary, Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Riley Briones, Sr., also known as Joker, FCIP — Federal Correctional Institution (Phoenix), Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

Before CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on March 17, 2006, is vacated, and these consolidated cases are withdrawn from submission to this panel.

Counsel will be appointed in a separate order.

Because we have vacated the memorandum disposition filed on March 17, 2006, and withdrawn these cases from submission to this panel, appellants’ petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are denied as moot.

The Clerk has recalled the mandates issued in these consolidated cases, so appellants’ motions to recall the mandate are also denied as moot.
<PAGE>   1
                                                           EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
NorAm Energy Corp. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File Nos.
33-64001, 33-41493, 33-52853 and 33-55071) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-61923,
33-10806, 33-20594, 33-38063, 33-38064, 33-54241, 33-54247, 33-54253) of our
reports dated March 25, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of December 31,
1995 and 1994, and for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994, and 1993, which
reports are included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K.

                                                      COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Houston, Texas
March 28, 1996