alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 02-41015

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FELIPE CORTES-GALLEGOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-228-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

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

PER CURIAM:*

Felipe Cortes-Gallegos appeals his guilty plea conviction

and sentence for being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. CortesGallegos argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in

his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks us
No. 02-41015

-2-

to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to

reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand

his case for resentencing under that provision. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Cortes-Gallegos acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been called

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90

(2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 706.401 Employees required to submit statements. ( a ) Employees in the following named positions shall submit statements of employment and financial interst to the Director: ( 1 ) Employees in Grade GS-16 or above of the General Schedule established by the Classification Act of 1949, as amended;
( 2 ) The General Counsel and Administrative Officer;
( 3 ) The Staff Specialists assigned to review applications by States for planning grants under Title III of the Water Resources Planning Act;
( 4 ) Special Government employees, as defined in § 706.102; and
( 5 ) Employees classified at GS-13 or above under 5 U.S.C. 5332, or at a comparable pay level under another authority, who are in positions which the Director may determine have duties and responsibilities which require the incumbent to report employment and financial interests in order to avoid involvement in possible conflicts-of-interest situation and carry out the purpose of law, Executive order, and Council regulations.
( b ) A statement of employment and financial interest is required from the Director and shall be submitted by the Director to the Chairman of the Council.
§ 1301.66 General declassification and downgrading policy. ( a ) TVA does not have original classification authority.
( b ) TVA personnel may not declassify information originally classified by other agencies.
#     Treatment

Effective and accessible treatment for mental health issues and substance use disorders is necessary to respond to public health crises. Unfortunately, many people do not receive or access treatment. SAMHSA data and reports help public health officials understand the challenges with access to the behavioral health system so those affected can receive adequate treatment.

### Categories Related to Treatment

                      - Any SUD
                      - Adolescents as Population Group
                      - Young Adults as Population Group
                      - Mature Adults as Population Group
                      - Older Adults as Population Group
                      - People with Mental Health Problems as Population Group
                      - Alcohol
                      - Alcohol Use Disorder
                      - Illegal Drugs
                      - Marijuana
                      - Tobacco
                      - Cocaine
                      - Pain Relievers
                      - People with Substance Use or Abuse Problems as Population Group
                      - Black or African American

Latest In Treatment

2019 NSDUH Detailed Tables

Data Table : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - September 11, 2020

2018 NSDUH Detailed Tables

Data Table : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - August 20, 2019

2020 NSDUH Annual National Report

Annual Report : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - October 25, 2021

2019 NSDUH Annual National Report

Annual Report : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - September 11, 2020

2018 NSDUH Annual National Report

Annual Report : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - August 20, 2019

View All
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte Manuel Flores, Jr.

No. 06-20-00124-CR

Appeal from the 54th District Court of 

McLennan County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2020-2233-2). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Manuel Flores, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 26, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### §713a. Repealed. June 30, 1947, ch. 166, title II, §206(p), 61 Stat. 208

Section, act Apr. 10, 1936, ch. 168, 49 Stat. 1191, authorized increase of capital stock of the Corporation by $97,000,000.
### Part B—Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

         In connection with the Annual Report of Elecsys Corporation
(the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended April 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and as of the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge;

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

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

Date:  July 29, 2005                      /s/ Karl B. Gemperli
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Karl B. Gemperli
                                          President, Chief Executive
                                          Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

**[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Elecsys Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]**
```
§ 115.165 Coordinated response. ( a ) The agency shall develop a written institutional plan to coordinate actions taken in response to a lockup incident of sexual abuse, among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and agency leadership.
( b ) If a victim is transferred from the lockup to a jail, prison, or medical facility, the agency shall, as permitted by law, inform the receiving facility of the incident and the victim's potential need for medical or social services, unless the victim requests otherwise.
# C_2013108EN.01000501.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/5

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — France) — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Éducation Nationale

(Case C-603/11) (1)

1

(Competition - Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU - Supplementary health insurance - Mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with the practitioners of their choice - Difference in treatment - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 108/08

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hervé Fontaine

Applicant:

Defendant: Mutuelle Générale de l'Éducation Nationale

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juridiction de Proximité, Chartres — Interpretation of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU — Competition — National legislation prohibiting mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided — Prohibition on the mutual companies entering into state health service agreements with practitioners of their choice — Difference of treatment in relation to other health insurance companies and institutions governed by the Code des Assurances or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale — Restrictions

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Juge de proximité, Chartres, by decision of 17 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.

1

---
#### Allied-Lynn Associates, Inc., Respondent, v Alex Bro, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[824 NYS2d 524]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Allegany County (Thomas P Brown, A.J.), entered August 15, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those parts of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendant Alex Bro, LLC and a determination that defendant Alex Bro, LLC is deemed to have waived the right to assert an offset claim for consequential damages.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff, the plumbing and heating subcontractor on a construction project, commenced this action seek*1248ing, inter alia, to foreclose the mechanic’s lien it filed after the owner of the property, defendant Alex Bro, LLC (Alex Bro), terminated Alex Bro’s contract with the general contractor. Supreme Court properly granted that part of plaintiffs motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability against Alex Bro. Contrary to the contention of Alex Bro, plaintiff submitted evidence establishing as a matter of law that the architect certified the date of substantial completion of the project pursuant to the terms of the contract between Alex Bro and the general contractor, and Alex Bro is bound by the architect’s determination *(see Savin Bros. v State of New York, 62*AD2d 511, 516 [1978], *affd*47 NY2d 934 [1979]; *H. M. Hughes Co. v Sapphire Realty Co.,*11 NY2d 17, 18 [1962], *rearg denied*11 NY2d 888 [1962]). Plaintiff also submitted evidence establishing as a matter of law that Alex Bro breached the contract by failing to comply with the provisions governing termination *(see General Supply & Constr. Co. v Goelet,*241 NY 28, 34 [1925], *mot to amend remittitur granted*241 NY 507 [1925]; *MCK Bldg. Assoc. v St. Lawrence Univ.,*301 AD2d 726, 727-728 [2003], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 651 [2003]), and Alex Bro failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat that part of plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability against it *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]). Present— Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.
#### Wen Ying Ji, Respondent, v Rockrose Development Corp. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[823 NYS2d 400]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paviola A. Soto, J.), entered August 15, 2005, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, and granted in part defendants’ cross motion to compel discovery, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to deny plaintiffs motion and grant defendants’ cross motion to compel discovery on both liability and damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*254This is an action to recover damages for property taken from plaintiffs apartment when defendant landlord allegedly permitted third-party defendant Meng Shen unauthorized access to plaintiffs apartment. The sole piece of evidentiary material offered by plaintiff in support of her summary judgment motion was her own affidavit, detailing her conversations with the landlord’s doorman regarding his giving access to plaintiff’s apartment to third-party defendant Meng Shen. This affidavit was, in important respects, hearsay evidence, and as such was insufficient to satisfy the movant’s burden of establishing a prima facie showing of entitlement to an award of summary judgment *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; *AIU Ins. Co. v American Motorists Ins. Co.,*8 AD3d 83, 85 [2004]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
§ 401.83 Hearing Officer. ( a ) *Generally.* Hearings shall be conducted by one or more members of the Commission, by the Executive Director, or by such other Hearing Officer as the Chairman may designate, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Wasteload allocation cases.* In cases involving the allocation of the assimilative capacity of a stream: ( 1 ) The Executive Director shall appoint a hearing board of at least two persons. One of them shall be nominated by the water pollution control agency of the state in which the discharge originates, and he shall be chairman. The board shall have and exercise the powers and duties of a Hearing Officer;
( 2 ) A quorum of the board for purposes of the hearing shall consist of two members; and
( 3 ) Questions of practice or procedure during the hearing shall be determined by the Chairman.
EXHIBIT 23.01


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-8 (No.  33-98402,  No.  33-74830  and No.  333-13461)  of
Alliance  Semiconductor  Corporation of our report dated April 25, 2000 relating
to the financial  statements and the financial statement schedule,  which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California
June 30, 2000
Exhibit


                                                                                                                                                                           Exhibit 10.19











Personal and Confidential


March 18, 2014


Laura Piccinini:


Subject:        Letter of Understanding – Vice President, Europe, Australia and New Zealand


Dear Laura:


This offer is being made by Kinetic Concepts, Inc., the parent company of KCI Medical S.r.l. (“KCI”).  Following your execution of this letter of understanding, we will provide you with a form of an Italian employment agreement with KCI Medical S.r.l.  This employment will reflect the new terms and conditions of being offered to you, as described below, and will also incorporate the other terms and conditions of your current employment agreement.


We are pleased to offer you the role of Vice President, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. As discussed, we anticipate this position will report to a new divisional President of Advanced Wound Therapeutics in the future.  Until a final long-term organizational structure is finalized you will report to Joe Woody, President and CEO of KCI. 


In connection with your new position, KCI will provide you with an increase in your gross salary from €280,000 per year to €290,000 per year.  KCI will also provide you an increase in your target percentage for your Annual Incentive Bonus (A.I.B.) from the current 35% of your yearly gross salary to 50% of your yearly gross salary.


You are also eligible for participation in the Executive Equity Incentive Plan maintained by KCI’s indirect parent, Chiron Guernsey Holdings L.P., Inc.  The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved a grant of 250,000 Profits Interest Units (PIU) in Chiron Guernsey Holdings, L.P. Inc.  This grant is an increase from the original 125,000 PIUs referenced in your employment agreement.  More information regarding the Executive Equity Incentive Plan and your award has already been provided to you under separate cover.


We look forward to working with you in your new role.  Please confirm your agreement to these terms by your signature below.  If you have any questions, please contact me before you return a signed original of this letter.


Sincerely,


/s/ David A. Lillback,
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 




Signed for Acceptance and Agreement:




________________________________                _________________________________
Laura Piccinini                            Date
Order entered October 4, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00325-CV

JESSICA D. LEE, M.D., Appellant

V.

LOIS HUNTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES 

HUNTER, DECEASED, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-02393

ORDER

Before the Court is Lois Hunter, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of James 

Hunter, Deceased’s October 4, 2016 Second Unopposed Motion to Extend Appellee’s Briefing 

Deadline. We DENY the motion. The case will remain set for submission on October 5, 2016. 

We note that, because appellee has failed to file a brief or timely request oral argument, her 

counsel will not be permitted to participate in oral argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.1.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
§ 5.11 Potential Applicant's proposed study plan and study plan meetings. ( a ) Within 45 days following the deadline for filing of comments on the pre-application document, including information and study requests, the potential applicant must file with the Commission a proposed study plan.
( b ) The potential applicant's proposed study plan must include with respect to each proposed study: ( 1 ) A detailed description of the study and the methodology to be used;
( 2 ) A schedule for conducting the study;
( 3 ) Provisions for periodic progress reports, including the manner and extent to which information will be shared; and sufficient time for technical review of the analysis and results; and
( 4 ) If the potential applicant does not adopt a requested study, an explanation of why the request was not adopted, with reference to the criteria set forth in § 5.9(b).
( c ) The potential applicant's proposed study plan must also include provisions for the initial and updated study reports and meetings provided for in § 5.15.
( d ) The applicant's proposed study plan must: ( 1 ) Describe the goals and objectives of each study proposal and the information to be obtained;
( 2 ) Address any known resource management goals of the agencies or Indian tribes with jurisdiction over the resource to be studied;
( 3 ) Describe existing information concerning the subject of the study proposal, and the need for additional information;
( 4 ) Explain any nexus between project operations and effects (direct, indirect, and/or cumulative) on the resource to be studied;
( 5 ) Explain how any proposed study methodology (including any preferred data collection and analysis techniques, or objectively quantified information, and a schedule including appropriate field season(s) and the duration) is consistent with generally accepted practice in the scientific community or, as appropriate, considers any known tribal interests;
( 6 ) Describe considerations of level of effort and cost, as applicable.
( e ) The potential applicant's proposed study plan must be accompanied by a proposal for conducting a study plan meeting or meetings during the 90-day period provided for in § 5.12 for the purpose of clarifying the potential applicant's proposed study plan and any initial information gathering or study requests, and to resolve any outstanding issues with respect to the proposed study plan. The initial study plan meeting must be held no later than 30 days after the deadline date for filing of the potential applicant's proposed study plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27.7:  RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's August 31, 1997 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000016918
<NAME> CANANDAIGUA BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    360,077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               545,802
<PP&E>                                         357,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,058,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          293,652
<BONDS>                                        298,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                     394,137
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,058,271
<SALES>                                        607,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               607,535
<CGS>                                          439,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  439,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,024
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,779
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,146
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27



</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER V—FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATION