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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50661

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

RUBEN ESPINDOLA-PINEDA,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:13-CR-999-1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruben Espindola-Pineda pleaded guilty of illegal reentry and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 51 months of imprisonment and 

three years of supervised release. On appeal he claims his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

* 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

April 2, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50661 Document: 00512991757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
No. 14-50661

Espindola-Pineda contends that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is flawed because it 

lacks an empirical basis and results in the double-counting of a criminal record. 

He maintains that his sentence is greater than necessary to fulfill the statutory 

sentencing goals for his nonviolent offense and does not account for his difficult 

childhood and his sympathetic reason for reentering the country. 

We have rejected Espindola-Pineda’s theory that § 2L1.2 results in 

double-counting, United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009), 

and that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

goals because illegal reentry is a nonviolent offense involving only “the act of 

crossing a line,” United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 

2006). We have rebuffed the argument that within-guidelines sentences calculated under § 2L1.2 should not be presumed reasonable on appeal because 

§ 2L1.2 lacks an empirical basis. United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 228 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 681 (2013). Espindola-Pineda can rebut the presumption only by showing that his sentence fails to account for a factor that 

should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or 

irrelevant factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the factors. See United States v. Tuma, 738 F.3d 681, 695 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 

134 S. Ct. 2875 (2014). 

The district court heard the parties’ positions, considered the § 3553(a) 

factors, and concluded that the sentence was appropriate. Espindola-Pineda 

has not shown that his difficult childhood and sympathetic motive for reentry

were factors not accounted for in the sentence that should have received great 

weight. Because Espindola-Pineda has not rebutted the appellate presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was reasonable or demonstrated that

it is the result of an abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007), the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50661 Document: 00512991757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6550

CARL MASON MANESS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALLACE THOMPSON HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-358-7-20AK) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 9, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Mason Maness, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Carl Mason Maness appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. Maness’ case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Not having received objections by the end of prescribed period, the district courtadopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice.Three days after the entry of judgment, Maness filed objections to the report. Because these objections were postmarked within the objection period, we construe them as timely under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maness v. Wallace Thompson Hospital , No. CA-98-358-7-20AK (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5682]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Correction 
Notice to Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Edwards, Brian Davis, or 
Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-8029, (202) 482-7924, and (202) 482-3019, respectively.

Correction

    On February 18, 2011, the Department published a notice of amended 
final results of administrative review for stainless steel sheet and 
strip in coils from Mexico. See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from Mexico; Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 9542 (February 18, 2011) (Amended Final 
Results). The Amended Final Results states incorrectly that cash 
deposit requirements, ``continue to be effective on any entries made on 
or after February 14, 2011, the date of publication of these amended 
final results.'' In addition, the Amended Final Results incorrectly 
refer to a 21.14 percent final results weighted-average margin 
calculated for ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox).
    The Amended Final Results are hereby corrected to read that cash 
deposit requirements, ``continue to be effective on any entries made on 
or after the date of publication of these amended final results.'' The 
Amended Final Results are also hereby corrected to refer to Mexinox's 
weighted-average margin of 21.16 percent determined by the Department 
in its final results of this review. See Stainless Steel Sheet and 
Strip in Coils from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 2332 (January 13, 2011).
    This notice is published in accordance with section 777(i) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-5682 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
§ 1318.401 Lead and cooperating agency determinations. ( a ) As soon as practicable after the decision is made to prepare an EIS (or EA), the NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with the initiating TVA entity and TVA legal counsel, shall determine whether inviting other Federal, State, or local agencies to participate in the preparation of the EIS as lead, joint lead (40 CFR 1501.5), or cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6) is necessary.
( b ) If TVA is requested to participate in the preparation of an EIS (or EA) of another Federal agency, the NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with other interested TVA entities, will determine if TVA should become a cooperating agency.
§ 367.9160 Account 916, Miscellaneous sales expenses. ( a ) This account must include the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in connection with sales activities, except merchandising, which are not includible in other sales expense accounts.
( b ) This account must include the following labor items: ( 1 ) General clerical and stenographic work not assigned to specific functions.
( 2 ) Special analysis of customer accounts and other statistical work for sales purposes not a part of the regular customer accounting and billing routine.
( 3 ) Miscellaneous labor.
( c ) This account must include the following materials and expenses items: ( 1 ) Communication service.
( 2 ) Printing, postage, and office supplies and expenses applicable to sales activities, except those chargeable to account 913, Advertising expenses (§ 367.9130).
### Part A—Establishment of Park and Preservation District
# C_2012235EN.01000501.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Maurice Emram v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Guccio Gucci SpA

(Case C-354/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark G - Trade marks)

2012/C 235/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Maurice Emram (represented by: M. Benavï, avocat)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Guccio Gucci SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case T-187/10 Emram v OHIM dismissing the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2010 (Case R 1281/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Emram — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Application for Community figurative mark G — Likelihood of confusion — Distortion of the evidence — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment

Emram

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Emram shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Emram shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
§ 701.310 Disclosure of record to person other than the individual to whom it pertains. ( a ) Any individual who desires to have a record covered by this subpart disclosed to or mailed to a person other than that individual may authorize that person to act as his agent for that specific purpose. The authorization will be in writing, signed by the individual, and will be notarized. The agent will submit with the authorization proof of the individual's identity as required by § 701.304(b).
( b ) The parent of any minor individual or the legal guardian of any individual who has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be incompetent due to physical or mental incapacity or age, may act on behalf of that individual in any matter covered by this subpart. A parent or guardian who desires to act on behalf of such an individual will present suitable evidence of parentage or guardianship, by birth certificate, certified copy of a court order, or similar documents, and proof of the individual's identity in a form that complies with § 701.304(b).
( c ) An individual to whom a record is to be disclosed in person pursuant to this subpart, may have a person of his own choosing accompany the individual when the record is disclosed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1                                        
<CURRENCY>   US DOLLARS
<EXCHANGE-RATE> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,221,795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  976,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,974
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,702,892
<PP&E>                                       2,401,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                 899,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,866,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,367,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,505
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,443,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,866,501
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,509,677
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,860,580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                887,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   352,647
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   534,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        


</TABLE>
(39 South. 741.)

No. 15,613.

#### TOWN OF MANY v. FRANKLIN.

(Dec. 4, 1905.)

Criminal Law — Appeai^Dismissal.

The appeal is dismissed, for the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down by Mr. Justice Land in the case of same title (No. 15,614) 39 South. 740, ante, p. 638.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Twelfth Judicial District Court, Parish of Sabine; John Bachman Lee, Judge.

R. K. Franklin was convicted of violating an ordinance of the town of Many, and on appeal to the district court the prosecution was dismissed, and the town appeals.

Dismissed.

John Henry Boone, for appellant. Silas D. Ponder, for appellee.

PROYOSTY, J.

Mutatis mutandis, this case' is identical with that between same parties (No. 15,614) this day decided. 39 South. 740, ante, p. 638.

For the reasons there assigned, the appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13357-13358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5686]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

International Trade Administration

[A-570-970]


Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: 
Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty 
Investigation

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce

DATES: Effective Date: March 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hollwitz or Charles Riggle, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2336 or (202) 482-0650, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On November 10, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') initiated an antidumping duty investigation on 
multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China.\1\ The 
notice of initiation stated that, unless postponed, the Department 
would issue its preliminary determination no later than 140 days after 
the date of issuance of the initiation, in accordance with section 
733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''). The 
preliminary determination is currently due no later than March 30, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of 
China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 75 FR 70714 
(November 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 3, 2011, the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity 
(``Petitioners''), made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.205(b)(2) and (e), for a postponement of the

[[Page 13358]]

preliminary determination, in order to allow additional time for the 
review of questionnaire responses.\2\ Because there are no compelling 
reasons to deny the request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of 
the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary 
determination by 50 days to no later than May 19, 2011. The deadline 
for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date 
of the preliminary determination, unless postponed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Letter from Petitioners, Multilayered Wood Flooring from 
the People's Republic of China: Request of Postponement of 
Preliminary Determination, dated March 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-5686 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BYSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Biocol, Inc., on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Christopher C. Corwin, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1.       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Date: July 19, 2004

/s/ Christopher C. Corwin Christopher C. Corwin
President (Principal Executive
& Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement 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.

---
June 30, 2015

Mr. Charles W. Davis

1711 Bates St

Midland, TX 79707

Dear Mr. Davis:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 26, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0779), 

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not 

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any 

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
LEVY BISHOP

,

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. 1D 16

- 3151

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Terry P. Lewis , Judge

.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender,
Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jason W. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, WETHERELL

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                     --------------------------------------


NAME                                                  STATE OF INCORPORATION
----                                                  ----------------------
Harveys Tahoe Management Company, Inc. ...........            Nevada
Harveys Iowa Management Company, Inc. ............            Nevada
Harveys C.C. Management Company, Inc. ............            Nevada
HCR Services Company, Inc. .......................            Nevada
Harveys L.V. Management Company, Inc. ............            Nevada
Reno Projects, Inc. ..............................            Nevada
West Ad...........................................            Nevada
Harveys Maryland Management Company, Inc. ........            Nevada
Harveys N.Y. Management Company, Inc. ............            Nevada
Harveys Mass. Management Company, Inc. ...........            Nevada
Harveys P.C., Inc. ...............................            Nevada