alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                        92,879
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  3,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                     1,199,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                                39,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,256,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                    1,167,687
<COMMON>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    48,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,256,815
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              36,915
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              36,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            19,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  881
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              881
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     881
<EPS-BASIC>                                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0


</TABLE>
Federal Maritime Commission
Washington, B.C. 20573 - 0001

Gifice of the Chairman

March 28, 2006

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate

506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Feingold:

Section 641 of The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 requires the head of each
Federal agency to report to Congress on the amount of ‘acquisitions made by the agency from entities
that manufacture articles, materials, or supplies outside of the United States, and on whether any
waivers of the requirements contained in the Buy American Act had been granted with respect to
such articles, materials or supplies, and to provide a summary of the total procurement funds spent
on goods manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods manufactured outside of
the United States. This letter serves as the Federal Maritime Commission’s (“Commission’s”) report
for fiscal year 2005.

As reported to the Federal Procurement Data Center, the Commission obligated $197,077
between October 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005, on goods under the different manufacturing
categories. All were acquired through GSA Schedules and the contracts of other Federal agencies.
Those agencies require compliance with the Buy American Act requirements in their review process.
The Commission trusts that the ongoing monitoring efforts of those large agencies ensure that
procurements made through these processes satisfy the Buy American Act requirements. We will
cooperate with those agencies in the future to undertake any actions deemed appropriate to assist
their monitoring activities. The Commission has no independent knowledge regarding whether those
large agencies entered into contracts in fiscal year 2005 to acquire items manufactured outside the
United States, nor whether they granted waivers in fiscal year 2005 with respect to contracts for
articles, materials or supplies under the Buy American Act, nor whether any of the funds spent by
the Commission through those agencies were spent on foreign manufactured goods during fiscal year
2005.

Copies of this report also are being distributed to the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee,
and to the House Transportation, Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.

Section 641 requires that each Federal agency submitting a report shall make the report
publicly available to the maximum extent practicable. In compliance with this provision, the


Commission will place the report on the its website at www.fc.gov

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Bruce A. Dombrowski, the

Commission’s Director of Administration, at (202) 523-5800.

Sincerely,

Za Lobe of

Steven R. Blust
Chairman

ce: Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary,
Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
House Transportation, Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50745

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD C. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CV-305

- - - - - - - - - -

December 1, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard C. Rodriguez appeals the denial of his motion to

vacate his federal sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Rodriguez argues that his counsel performed ineffectively

by: inducing him to plead guilty to possession of heroin with

intent to distribute by misinforming him about his potential

sentence; failing to argue that his federal sentence should run

concurrently with an unexpired state sentence under U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3; and failing to challenge an alleged ex post facto

violation regarding § 5G1.3. To prevail on this issue, Rodriguez
No. 96-50745

-2-

must prove that his attorney’s performance fell below an

objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984). In order to show prejudice in the

context of a guilty plea, Rodriguez must establish that, but for

counsel’s deficient performance, there is a reasonable

probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have

insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59

(1985).

Rodriguez failed to make the requisite showing as to any of

his ineffectiveness claims, all of which are based on the

underlying contention that he was entitled under U.S.S.G. 

§ 5G1.3(b) to have his federal sentence run concurrently with an

unexpired state prison term for an unrelated offense. That

underlying argument is meritless because Rodriguez cannot show

prejudice.

Rodriguez’s substantive claim based on § 5G1.3 is not

cognizable under § 2255 because it does not give rise to a

constitutional issue. United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368

(5th Cir. 1992). Rodriguez’s Ex Post Facto Clause claim

regarding § 5G1.3 is meritless because the sentencing court

properly applied the guideline in effect at the time of

sentencing. See United States v. Carmouche, 138 F.3d 1014, 1017

(5th Cir. 1998). Rodriguez was not entitled to an evidentiary
No. 96-50745

-3-

hearing as to any of these claims. United States v. Drummond,

910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1  SUBSIDIARIES OF CTC MEDIA, INC.  Subsidiary
  
  Percentage
  OwnershipChannary, Ltd. (Cyprus)
  
  74%Media Forte, Inc. (USA)
  
  100%OAO Teleexpress
  (Moscow)
  
  99.9%OAO VnC Permprades
  (Perm)
  
  80.02%OOO CTC Balakovo
  (Balakovo)
  
  50%OOO CTC Communications
  
  100%OOO CTC Investments
  
  100%OOO CTC Irkutsk
  (Irkutsk)
  
  51%OOO CTC Karelia
  (Petrozavodsk)
  
  51%OOO CTC Ufa (Ufa)
  
  100%OOO CTC Volgograd
  (Volgograd)
  
  100%OOO CTC Voskhod
  (Vladivostok)
  
  74%OOO Grand (Kazan)
  
  100%OOO Irkutsk TV
  (Irkutsk)
  
  51%OOO Kontinent-50
  (Vladivostok)
  
  100%OOO Maraphon TV
  (Moscow)
  
  100%OOO Media Region
  (Bratsk)
  
  51%OOO NTK (N. Novgorod)
  
  100%OOO PKF Radiosvyaz
  (Voronezh)
  
  100%OOO Programma, Service,
  Montage (Rostov)
  
  100%OOO Region-25 (Ussuriysk)
  
  100%OOO Region TV (Irkutsk)
  
  51%OOO Samara Business
  Club
  
  21%OOO Sof Tele Media
  (Uzbekistan)
  
  51.06%OOO Stavropolskaya
  Veshatelnaya Corporatsiya (Stavropol)
  
  100%OOO TC Kemerovo Tom
  (Kemerovo)
  
  100%OOO TC Vecher (Barnaul)
  
  51%OOO TV Company T8
  (Perm)
  
  100%OOO TV-Domashny
  (Moscow)
  
  100%OOO TV Station Mir
  (Novosibirsk)
  
  50%OOO Vega-TV (Barnaul)
  
  51%OOO VTK (Voronezh)
  
  90%Sablock, Ltd (Cyprus)
  
  100%ZAO Baltiyskaya TV Co.
  (Kaliningrad)
  
  75%ZAO Channel 6 (St.
  Petersburg)
  
  80%ZAO CTC (Moscow)
  
  100%ZAO CTC Region
  
  100%ZAO CTC Saratov
  (Saratov)
  
  74%ZAO Kanal 6 (Kazan)
  
  100%ZAO Nevsky Kanal (St.
  Petersburg)
  
  100%ZAO Novy Kanal (Moscow)
  
  100%ZAO Orion TV (Samara)
  
  100%ZAO Radio-Volga-TV
  (Samara)
  
  100%ZAO RTK (Ekaterinburg)
  
  51.44%ZAO TV Maxima (Perm)
  
  85%ZAO TRC Gubernia (Tver)
  
  100%ZAO Variant (Kazan)
  
  52%ZAO Yuzhny Region
  Holding (Rostov)
  
  51.05%ZAO Yuzhny Region TV
  (Rostov)
  
  15.93%ZAO Zodiak (Omsk)
  
  84.18%  All subsidiaries listed above are organized under the laws of the
Russian Federation, other than as indicated above.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Presidential Documents 51971 

Notice of November 6, 2017 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction 

On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, the President declared 

a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States 

posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 

(weapons of mass destruction) and the means of delivering such weapons. 

On July 28, 1998, by Executive Order 13094, the President amended Executive 

Order 12938 to respond more effectively to the worldwide threat of proliferation activities related to weapons of mass destruction. On June 28, 2005, 

by Executive Order 13382, the President, among other things, further amended Executive Order 12938 to improve our ability to combat proliferation 

activities related to weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them continues to 

pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign 

policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the national 

emergency declared in Executive Order 12938 with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering such 

weapons must continue beyond November 14, 2017. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), 

I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive 

Order 12938, as amended by Executive Orders 13094 and 13382. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

November 6, 2017. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24466 

Filed 11–7–17; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3295–F8–P 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
Order filed January 13, 2015, Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order filed 

January 29, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00708-CR

____________

ODEL RODRICK ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1324945

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due December 3, 2014. No brief or motion for 

extension of time was filed. On December 12, 2015, the parties were notified that 

the time for filing appellant’s brief had expired and unless a motion for extension 

of time was filed the Court would take appropriate action. No response was filed. 

On January 13, 2015, this Court issued an order abating the appeal and directing 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for failure to file 
appellant’s brief. 

On January 23, 2015, counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief until February 13, 2015. 

The motion is granted. Our order of January 13, 2015, is withdrawn. The 

appeal is reinstated. Appellant’s brief is due February 13, 2015.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luna Medical Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Brent Shaw, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Brent Shaw



Brent Shaw

Acting Chief Executive Officer

February 26, 2003
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40436

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL RUBALCADA, also known as Armando Trevino, 

also known as Jose Manuel,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-128-ALL

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

January 29, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Rubalcada appeals his sentence for possession with

intent to distribute marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)

and 21 U.S.C. § 846(b)(1)(D). Rubalcada argues that the district

court erred in giving him an upward adjustment for obstruction of

justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because there was no

evidence that he had willfully failed to appear at his
No. 02-40436

-2-

arraignment and because the district court made no finding of

willfulness. 

The district court did not clearly err in adjusting

Rubalcada’s sentence for obstruction of justice, since there is

ample evidence in the record that his failure to appear was

willful. See United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 645-46 (5th

Cir. 2002). For example, at sentencing, the district court found

that Rubalcada had absconded and had traveled around the country

to evade law enforcement. 

AFFIRMED.
#### Ruben Solis ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. James BURGESS, Lieutenant at Telford; Jason Smith, Lieutenant at Telford; Ricky Leakes, Lieutenant at Telford; Norris Jordan, Lieutenant at Telford; Charles Lafayette, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; Charles Howard, Lieutenant at Telford Unit; Nathan Jordan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-40484.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 13, 2013.

Ruben Solis Anderson, New Boston, TX, pro se.

Christopher Lee Lindsey, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Solis Anderson, Texas prisoner # 596151, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Anderson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Anderson argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 complaint, denying his motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and denying an unspecified motion for leave to amend his complaint. However, Anderson has not adequately addressed the district court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint or for denying the motions. By failing to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, Anderson has abandoned any challenges he might have raised regarding the district court’s decisions. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

Accordingly, Anderson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 219-20. The IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Anderson’s motion for leave to amend and motion for a default judgment are likewise DENIED.

*494The district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim and our dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as “strikes” for purposes of the “three strikes” bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383,*387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Anderson is WARNED that if he accumulates at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC Stands Ready to Provide Assistance to Shippers & Carriers Effected by Hurricane Harvey","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"97SjZqw9Nj\"><a href=\"\/fmc-stands-ready-to-provide-assistance-to-shippers-carriers-effected-by-hurricane-harvey\/\">FMC Stands Ready to Provide Assistance to Shippers & Carriers Effected by Hurricane Harvey<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-stands-ready-to-provide-assistance-to-shippers-carriers-effected-by-hurricane-harvey\/embed\/#?secret=97SjZqw9Nj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Stands Ready to Provide Assistance to Shippers & Carriers Effected by Hurricane Harvey” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"97SjZqw9Nj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}