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

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50917

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jose Padron, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 6:09-CR-191-4

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Padron, federal prisoner #39456-177, appeals the denial of his 

motion for compassionate release and motion for reconsideration. The district court determined that Padron had failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction and that the 18 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50917 Document: 00516518412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2022
No. 21-50917

2

§ 3553(a) factors did not justify a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

The district court found that Padron was not sentenced based on any 

misinformation by an individual cooperating with the government and that 

the sentence was not affected by reduced mandatory minimum sentences

under the First Step Act of 2018. Padron fails to show that those findings are 

erroneous. Additionally, although he asserts that he has had serious health 

issues that could make him susceptible to COVID-19 complications, he does 

not identify any specific health issue.

Padron’s assertions regarding whether his drug offense was serious or 

violent, the amount of time he has served, and his postconviction rehabilitation do not show that the district court based its decision on an error of law 

or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). To the extent those assertions challenge the district court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors did not justify a reduction, Padron’s disagreement with the court’s balancing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See id. at 694. Padron

has not shown that the district court abused its discretion.

In addition to his appeal, Padron has filed a motion in this court 

requesting compassionate release. He cites no authority by which an appellate court may reduce a federal prisoner’s sentence in the first instance under 

these circumstances. The motion is DENIED.

The denial of compassionate release and reconsideration is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-50917 Document: 00516518412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2022
§ 381.87 Tumors. ( a ) Tumors, including those possibly caused by avian leukosis complex, may be trimmed from any affected organ or other part of a carcass where there is no evidence of metastasis or that the general condition of the bird has been affected by the size, position, or nature of the tumor. Trimmed carcasses otherwise found to be not adulterated shall be passed as human food.
( b ) Any organ or other part of a carcass which is affected by a tumor where there is evidence of metastasis or that the general condition of the bird has been affected by the size, position, or nature of the tumor, must be condemned.
[88 FR 55913, Aug. 17, 2023]
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1257

AN ACT

To amend statutory damages provisions of title 17, United

States Code.

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 ‘‘Digital Theft Deter5 rence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999’’.
2

S 1257 ES

1 SEC. 2. STATUTORY DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT.

2 Section 504(c) of title 17, United States Code, is

3 amended—

4 (1) in paragraph (1)—

5 (A) by striking ‘‘$500’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘$750’’; and

7 (B) by striking ‘‘$20,000’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘$30,000’’; and

9 (2) in paragraph (2)—

10 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(2)’’;

11 (B) by striking ‘‘$100,000’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘$150,000’’;

13 (C) by inserting after the second sentence

14 the following:

15 ‘‘(B) In a case where the copyright owner dem16 onstrates that the infringement was part of a re17 peated pattern or practice of willful infringement,

18 the court may increase the award of statutory dam19 ages to a sum of not more than $250,000 per

20 work.’’; and

21 (D) by striking ‘‘The court shall remit

22 statutory damages’’ and inserting the following:
3

S 1257 ES

1 ‘‘(C) The court shall remit statutory damages’’.

Passed the Senate July 1, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1257

AN ACT

To amend statutory damages provisions of title 17,

United States Code.
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANTS’ OPENING 

BRIEF--pg. 1 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20-0117

)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & )

INDUSTRY, ex rel.: David A. )

Stevenson, )

) ORDER GRANTING

Petitioner/Appellee, ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO

) FILE APPELLANTS’

vs. ) OPENING BRIEF

)

LEPROWSE CONSTRUCTION, INC., )

and LEPROWSE CONTRACTING, INC., )

Montana Corporations action as joint )

employers, )

)

Respondents/Appellants, )

)

PURSUANT to the Amended Appellants’ Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Appellants’ Opening Brief, and for good cause appearing 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants shall have to and including June 23, 2020, to 

file and serve their Opening Brief.

DATED: . 

By 

Electronically signed by:

Laurie McKinnon

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2020

06/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0117
§ 1309.6 Is the normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity an exception to the rules against age discrimination? A recipient is permitted to take an action, otherwise prohibited by § 1309.5, if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if: ( a ) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics; and
( b ) The other characteristic(s) must be measured or approximated in order for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity; and
( c ) The other characteristic(s) can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and
( d ) It is impractical to measure the other characteristic(s) directly on an individual basis.
(67 South. 895)

No. 20357.

#### ANDRUS et al. v. ANDRUS.

(Feb. 23, 1915.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Insane Persons <§=^30 — Senile Dementia— Interdiction.

One who is afflicted with senile dementia so as to be incapable of taking care of his person or of administering his estate is subject to interdiction.

[Ed. Not-e. — For other cases, see Insane Persons, Cent. Dig. §§ 43, 45, 61; Dec. Dig. <§=> 30.]

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson Davis; Winston Overton, Judge.

Petition by Isaac E. Andrus and others to have David D. Andrus adjudged insane. From a judgment of interdiction, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

McCoy & Moss, of Lake Charles, and Robert L. Knox, of New Orleans, for appellant. Smith & Carmouche, of Crowley, for appellees.

O’NIELL, J.

On the petition of three of his sons, the defendant was adjudged insane, and he has appealed from the judgment of interdiction.

The interdict is nearly 82 years of age, and is afflicted with senile dementia. This infirmity rendered him incapable of managing his estate and his business affairs during the 2 years preceding the filing of this suit. He owns about 2,500 acres of land which is devoted principally to cattle ranges and partly to farming. His entire estate amounts to about $100,000. In 1912 he gave a very general power of attorney to one of his sons to manage his business. Although the evidence *825does not establish that the unfavorable criticism of the agent’s management is entirely well founded, there is great dissatisfaction among the other members of the family, who .are demanding an accounting; and there is no one to whom this agent can legally account or be made to account, except a curator.

The defendant’s counsel contended in the district court, and are still urging with great earnestness, that senile dementia is not insanity. The various authorities on medical-jurisprudence define “senile dementia” as one of the forms of insanity. It is characterized by a mental weakness and inability to reason, a state of enfeeblement of the brain, which comes to those whose other vital organs have served them to a very old age. It *may*be regarded as a venerable form of insanity, but it is insanity nevertheless.

Article 389 of the Civil Code provides that no person above the age of majority who is subject to an habitual state of imbecility, insanity, or madness shall be allowed to take care of his own person and administer his estate. And article 422 provides that not only lunatics and idiots are liable to be interdicted, but likewise all persons who, owing to any infirmity, are incapable of taking care •of their persons and administering their estates.

The defendant is incapable of taking care of his person or of administering his estate, and there is good cause for his interdiction.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
### §§5802, 5803. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section 5802, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §502, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5123, provided definitions for this chapter. See section 50501 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Section 5803, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §504, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5124; Pub. L. 105–303, title I, §103, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2851, related to launch voucher demonstration program. See section 50502 of Title 51.
# C_2012273EN.01002303.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/23

---

Order of the General Court of 10 July 2012 — RTI and Elettronica Industriale v Commission

(Case T-506/10) (1)

1

2012/C 273/41

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 10.6


  


 


OMNIBUS
AGREEMENT EXTENSION


 


 


This Omnibus Agreement Extension (“Agreement”)
is entered into on February 25, 2016, and is by and between EnerVest, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership (“EnerVest”)
and EV Energy GP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “General Partner”).


 


WHEREAS, the Omnibus Agreement (the “First
Omnibus Agreement”), was entered into on September 29, 2006, by and among EnerVest, EV Management LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (“EV Management”), the General Partner, EV Energy Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership
(the “Partnership”), and EV Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“OLP”). Any
capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth therein;


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.3 of the
First Omnibus Agreement, EnerVest and the General Partner determine the amount of general and administrative expenses that will
be properly allocated to the Partnership after December 31, 2008;


 


WHEREAS, the First Omnibus Agreement automatically
renews each year if it is not terminated by either EnerVest or the General Partner;


 


WHEREAS, the First Omnibus Agreement was
extended by the Omnibus Agreement Extensions entered into on December 17, 2008, December 10, 2009, December 21, 2010, December
20, 2011; February 25, 2013, February 15, 2014, and February 25, 2015;


 


WHEREAS, neither party has terminated the
First Omnibus Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, based on the recommendation of
the Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of EV Management, which provided Special Approval (as defined in the limited
partnership agreement of the Partnership) to the extension of the First Omnibus Agreement as contemplated by this Agreement, the
Board of Directors of EV Management has authorized and approved the extension of the First Omnibus Agreement as contemplated by
this Agreement.


 


In consideration of the premises and the
covenants, conditions, and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, EnerVest and the General Partner hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The First Omnibus Agreement shall continue in effect
until December 31, 2016, subject to termination or automatic renewal on such date as provided in the First Omnibus Agreement.


 






    	 	1	 



     


    

 


2. The Partnership shall pay EnerVest a fee of $1,333,333.33
per month for the services described in the First Omnibus Agreement, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 3.3 therein.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have
executed this Agreement on, and effective as of, the date above first written.


 





	ENERVEST, LTD.
	 	 
	By:	EnerVest Management GP, L.C., 
	 	its general partner
	 	 
	 	 
	By:  /s/MICHAEL E. MERCER                                     
	 	Michael E. Mercer
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 
	 	 
	EV ENERGY GP, L.P.
	 	 
	By:	EV MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., 
	 	its general partner
	 	 
	 	 
	By:  /s/NICHOLAS P. BOBROWSKI                           
	 	Nicholas P. Bobrowski
	 	Vice President and Chief Financial Officer







 


 








    	 	2
Exhibit 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date:  November 14, 2007 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                         
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                         | Marc N. Teal,
Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27: Financial Data Schedule

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.


</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 3,774,442
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,354,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                           15,764
<INVENTORY>                                            191,889  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       5,321,756
<PP&E>                                                 895,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                         61,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         6,156,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  572,849  
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               5,611
<OTHER-SE>                                             6,079,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           6,156,156
<SALES>                                                2,987,067
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       3,116,577
<CGS>                                                  862,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          862,031 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,096,576
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        157,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                           46,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           111,970 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
TMS, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(no. 333-03909) on Form S-8 of TMS, Inc. of our report dated October 20, 1998,
relating to the balance sheets of TMS, Inc. as of August 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flow
for the years then ended, and the related financial statement schedule,
which report appears in the August 31, 1998, annual report on Form 10-KSB of
TMS, Inc.







                                              KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
November 23, 1998
EXHIBIT 99.1

                        UNITRONIX CORPORATION

                      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 Quarterly Report of Unitronix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


May 10, 2004 /s/Dale M. Hendrick      President and Chief Executive Officer
             ------------------------

May 10, 2004 /s/William C. Wimer      Vice President of Operations and
             ------------------------   Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2011232EN.01004102.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/41

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 — Mora Carrasco and Others v European Parliament

(Case F-128/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Inter-institutional transfer in the course of the promotion period during which the official would have been promoted in his institution of origin - Competent institution to decide on the promotion of the transferred official)

(2011/C 232/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mora Carrasco and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and J.F. de Wachter, agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion period

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs of the applicants in addition to its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs of the applicants in addition to its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 35.

---
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Inverted Paradigms Corporation (the Company), for the six month period
ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steve Weldon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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/ Steven Weldon                    
|Steven Weldon                        
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|Dated: February 8, 2007              



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inverted Paradigms Corporation and will be retained by Inverted Paradigms Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.