alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10896

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rene Rigoberto Rodriguez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-354-1

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Rene Rigoberto Rodriguez pleaded guilty to illegal receipt of a firearm 

by a person under indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n) and 

924(a)(1)(D). He maintains § 922(n) does not pass the historical test 

provided in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 

(2022), and is therefore in violation of the Second Amendment. Because

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10896 Document: 00516789784 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
No. 22-10896

2

Rodriguez (as he concedes) did not raise this issue in district court, review is 

only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th 

Cir. 2012). 

Under that standard, Rodriguez must show a forfeited plain error 

(clear-or-obvious error, rather than one subject to reasonable dispute) that 

affected his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). If he makes that showing, we have the discretion to correct the 

reversible plain error, but generally should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. Id.

An error is not clear or obvious where an issue is disputed or 

unresolved, or where there is an absence of controlling authority. E.g., United 

States v. Rodriguez-Parra, 581 F.3d 227, 230–31 (5th Cir. 2009); see also 

United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802 (5th Cir. 2015) (“In considering 

whether an error is clear or obvious we look to the state of the law at the time 

of appeal”.(citation omitted)). In an unpublished opinion, our court rejected 

the argument that § 922(n) is clearly-or-obviously unconstitutional under 

Bruen. See United States v. Avila, No. 22-50088, 2022 WL 17832287, at *2 

(5th Cir. 21 Dec. 2022), petition for cert. filed (20 Apr. 2023) (No. 22-7352). 

There is no binding precedent holding § 922(n) unconstitutional, and 

it is not clear Bruen dictates such a result. Id. Accordingly, Rodriguez is 

unable to demonstrate the requisite clear-or-obvious error. E.g., RodriguezParra, 581 F.3d at 230–31; United States v. Guerrero-Robledo, 565 F.3d 940, 

946 (5th Cir. 2009) (“It certainly is not plain error for the district court to 

rely on an unpublished opinion that is squarely on point.”).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-10896 Document: 00516789784 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

September 2, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Thursday, September 18, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., Docket 

Nos. SE 2007-203-R et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred 

in applying the “reasonably prudent person” test in determining 

whether a roof fall violation occurred.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Sarah Stewart (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD 

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

___________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AK-962-1410-HY-P; F-14940-A]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of modified decision.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the decision approving lands for conveyance to Dinyea Corporation, 
notice of which was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 
1996, 61 FR 67573, is modified by changing the uses allowed on site 
easement EIN 1 D3. Notice of the modified decision will also be 
published four (4) times in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until January 28, 2002 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights. Except as modified, the decision, notice of which 
was given December 23, 1996, is final.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7599.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christy Favorite, 907-271-5656, or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8bb908a918b8c81a7be998e978a918c9db89993d69a9495d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf8ca7bda6bcbbb69089aeb9a0bda6bbaa8faea4e1ada3a2e1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

Christy Favorite,
Land Law Examiner, Branch of ANCSA Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 01-31757 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3481 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3481

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for limitations on 
      duty hours for yardmaster employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2021

 Mr. Carbajal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for limitations on 
      duty hours for yardmaster employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad Yardmaster Protection Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON DUTY HOURS OF YARDMASTER EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Limitations on Duty Hours of Yardmaster Employees.--Section 
21103 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the heading of such section, by inserting ``and 
        yardmaster employees'' after ``train employees'';
            (2) by inserting ``or yardmaster employee'' after ``train 
        employee'' each place it appears; and
            (3) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or yardmaster'' after 
        ``During a train''.
    (b) Definitions.--Section 21101 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``a yardmaster 
        employee,'' after ``dispatching service employee,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(6) `yardmaster employee' means an individual 
                responsible for supervising and coordinating the 
                control of trains and engines operating within a rail 
                yard.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 211 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating 
to section 21103 and inserting the following:

``21103. Limitations on duty hours of train employees and yardmaster 
                            employees.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000359

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

DYLAN RIVER JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5CPC-20-0000051)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that we lack

jurisdiction over the appeal by Defendant-Appellant Dylan River

James (James) from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit's

(circuit court) March 28, 2022 "Order Denying [James]'s Motion in

Limine #1 Paragraph 'F' Filed on December 20, 2021" (Order

Denying MIL) because the circuit court improperly certified the

Order Denying MIL for interlocutory appeal. 

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-17 (2016) allows a

defendant to assert an interlocutory appeal in a criminal matter

from the circuit court to this court, "[u]pon application made

within the time provided by the rules of court." Hawai i Rules

of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(b)(1) provides in relevant

part that a "motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal

from an order of the circuit court must be filed within 30 days

of the court's entry of the order." (Emphasis added.) Here, the

circuit court entered its Order Denying MIL on March 28, 2022,

making a motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal due by

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-22-0000359

23-JUN-2022

07:51 AM

Dkt. 14 ODSLJ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

April 27, 2022.1 However, James did not file his Motion for

Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal until April 29, 2022, which

was untimely under HRS § 641-17 and HRAP Rule 4(b)(1).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions or

stipulations are dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 23, 2022.

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Presiding Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

1 April 27, 2022 was not a holiday, Saturday, or Sunday. See HRAP

Rule 26(a).

2
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3626 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary concerned 

to pay a member in the reserve component of an Armed Force a special 

bonus or incentive pay in the same amount as a member in the regular 

component of that Armed Force. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2021 

Mr. RYAN (for himself, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. NEAL, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. SAN NICOLAS, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mrs. AXNE, Mr. KAHELE, and 

Ms. SPANBERGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary concerned to pay a member in the reserve component of an Armed Force a special bonus or incentive 

pay in the same amount as a member in the regular 

component of that Armed Force. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Guard and 

5 Reserve Incentive Pay Parity Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3626 IH

1 SEC. 2. EQUAL SPECIAL BONUS AND INCENTIVE PAY FOR 

2 MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS 

3 OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 

5 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘§ 357. Special bonus and incentive pay authorities 

8 for members of the reserve components 

9 of the armed forces 

10 ‘‘The Secretary concerned shall pay a member of the 

11 reserve component of an armed force a special bonus or 

12 incentive pay in the same monthly amount as that paid 

13 to a member in the regular component of such armed force 

14 performing comparable work requiring comparable 

15 skills.’’. 

16 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

17 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

18 after the item relating to section 356 the following: 

‘‘357. Special bonus and incentive pay authorities for members of the reserve 

components of the armed forces.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary   information   extracted  from  the  financial
statements of the March 31, 1997 Aircraft  Income Partners L.P.
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,610,638
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,063,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,040,031
<PP&E>                                     100,176,927
<DEPRECIATION>                              74,493,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,723,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,693,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,029,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,723,234
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,071,097
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,846,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 60,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             60,423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    60,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
JOHNNY MILLS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5818

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 5, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Johnny Mills, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
103 A.3d 1215

#### IN THE MATTER OF CARL D. GENSIB, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 029931990).

December 12, 2014.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-006, concluding that CARL D. GENSIB of NORTH BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to communicate with the client), *RPC*7.1(a) (false or misleading communication about the lawyer, the lawyer’s services, or any matter in which the lawyer has or seeks a professional involvement), and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the Court having determined on its own motion, pursuant to *Rule*l:20-16(b), to review the matter, and having concluded that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CARL D. GENSIB is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
United States Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR Filing


EXHIBIT 10.8




NPERSPECTIVE Resource Agreement




1.

This agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Agreement”) in between GelTech Solutions, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Company) and Nperspective, LLC (hereinafter referred to “Nperspective”).




2.

The Company will pay to Nperspective a resource fee of $937.50 per month (the “Retainer”) for providing CFO services as set forth in the Employment Agreement between the Company and David A Rosenfeld.




3.

The Company will pay the Retainer as long as David A Rosenfeld works as an employee of the Company.




4.

The Company will pay the Retainer consistent with the timing and method of paying the Employee. 




5.

The Retainer in the first and last month of employment will be prorated if the employee works less than four weeks in such months.




6.

The laws of the State of Florida shall govern the Agreement.







I have read and understood the scope of services and fees described in this Agreement.  I hereby agree to the terms of this Agreement with respect to David A Rosenfeld.







								
	/s/ Michael Cordani

	     

	8-28-07

	 
	 
	/s/ David A. Rosenfeld

	     

	8/28/07


	Michael Cordani

	 
	Date

	 
	 
	David A. Rosenfeld

	 
	Date


	CEO & Chairman

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	GelTech Solutions, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

TED JENSEN,

Appellant.

No. 84377-0-I

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM. Ted Jensen appeals a trial court order denying his “Motion for 

Order to Show Cause re: Vacation of Judgment/Order” and his “Motion for Relief from 

Judgment Revoking Deferred Sentence.” His court-appointed attorney has filed a 

motion to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on 

review. Pursuant to State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), the motion 

to withdraw must:

[1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record 

that might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel’s brief 

should be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise 

any points that he chooses; [4] the court—not counsel—then 

proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide 

whether the case is wholly frivolous.

Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders, 386 U.S. at 744) (alterations in original).

This procedure has been followed. Jensen’s counsel on appeal filed a brief with 

the motion to withdraw. Jensen was served with a copy of the brief, and informed of his 
No. 84377-0-I/2

-2-

right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. Jensen filed a statement of 

additional grounds. 

The material facts are accurately set forth in counsel’s brief in support of the 

motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has 

independently reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the 

following potential issues raised by counsel: whether the trial court erred by denying his 

motions to vacate his judgment and sentence on his conviction for theft in the second 

degree and whether Jensen received ineffective assistance of appointed counsel. The 

court also considered the following issues raised by Jensen: whether the record is 

insufficient to permit review because it did not contain verbatim reports of proceedings 

from 1984 and 1986, and whether the prosecutor committed misconduct in obtaining a 

continuance of the hearing on his motions.

The issues raised by counsel and by Jensen are wholly frivolous. The motion to 

withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

FOR THE COURT:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
company's quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2001
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2001
<CASH>                                                2596
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                              260496
<DEPRECIATION>                                      188740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       74352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                33720
<BONDS>                                            1220719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              6346
<OTHER-SE>                                        (1379467)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         74352
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     43368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   44906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (88274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>