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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41674

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN MANCILLA-RANGEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-440-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Adrian Mancilla-Rangel (Mancilla) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in

the United States after deportation and after having been

convicted of an aggravated felony. Mancilla argues that the

“felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. 

Mancilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 
No. 05-41674

-2-

Although Mancilla contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the

basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States

v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Mancilla properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit

precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further

review.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 301.81 Restrictions on interstate movement of regulated articles.

No person may move interstate from any quarantined area any regulated article except in accordance with this subpart.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00009-CR

CHRISTIAN SIBLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-2143

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive 

data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social 

security number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal identification 

number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a)(1). The reporter’s record contains numerous references to this 

sensitive data. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing 

with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the 

reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accord

with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the electronically filed reporter’s record in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: July 22, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00129-CR

PAUL DOUGLAS WETZEL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1405190W

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Paul Douglas Wetzel pled guilty to theft under $1,500 with two 

prior theft convictions, a state jail felony,2 and judicially confessed in exchange 

for six months’ confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court followed the plea 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2014).
2

bargain, convicted Appellant of the offense, and sentenced him to six months’ 

confinement.

The trial court’s certification states that the case was plea-bargained and

that Appellant has no right of appeal. Accordingly, we informed Appellant by 

letter that this case could be dismissed unless he or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal showed grounds for continuing it.

3 We did not receive a 

response. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.4

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 4, 2015

 3

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).

4

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 245 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to allow certain loans that are not 

fully amortizing to be used in seller carryback financing on residential 

mortgage loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to allow certain loans 

that are not fully amortizing to be used in seller 

carryback financing on residential mortgage loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVING LIMITATION. 

4 Section 103(cc)(2)(E) of the Truth in Lending Act 

5 (as added by section 1401 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

6 Reform and Consumer Protection Act) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking clause (ii); and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

2 

•HR 245 IH

1 (2) by redesignating clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) 

2 as clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv), respectively. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
#### § 29.1076 Uniformity.

An element of quality which describes the consistency of a lot of tobacco as it is prepared for market. Uniformity is expressed as a percentage in grade specifications. (See Rule 13.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
ILLINOISENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY1021NORTH GRAND AVENUEEAST,P.O.BOX19276,SPRINGFIELD,ILLINOIS627949276-(217)782-2829JAMESR.THOMPSONCEMER,100WESTRANDOLPH,SUITE11-300,CHICAGO,IL60601-(312)8146026RODR.BLAGOJEVICH,GOVERNORDOUGLASP.Scorr,DIREC~ORSeptember22,2008Ms.CherylNewtonActingDirectorAirandRadiation DivisionUSEPA,Region577WestJackson Blvd.Chicago,Illinois 60604Re:Infrastructure StateImplementation Plan-EmergencyEpisodeRequirementDear Ms. Newton:Section110(a)(2)ofthe CleanAirAct("CAY)requiresstates to submitStateImplementationPlans("SIPs")that addressgeneralrequirementsfor attainingandmaintaining theNationalAmbient Air QualityStandards("NAAQS")for criteriapollutants(hereinafter"infrastructureSIP").Further, states arerequired tosubmitSIPrevisions after theUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency("USEPA")revisesoramendsaNAAQStoaffirmthatthe statemeetstherequirementsofSection110(a)(2) for thenewpollutant.The IllinoisEnvironmental ProtectionAgency("Illinois EPA")submitted a letter toUSEPA,datedDecember27,2007,confirming theStateofIllinois'continued commitment to meetthe requirementsofSection110(a)(2).Thisletter supplementsthatsubmittalthatidentifiedhowthe StateofIllinoishassatisfied the"infrastructure"elements forSIPsrequiredunderSection110(a)(2).Subsection(G)ofSection110(a)(2)requires states toaddress emergencyepisodes.Pursuant toSection34ofthe Illinois Environmental ProtectionAct("Act")[415ILCS51341,theIllinoisPollutionControlBoard("Board")hasadopted regulationsto addressemergencyepisodesat35Ill.Adm.Code Part 244, includingregulationsforPMloepisodes. The IllinoisEPA believes thatthese levels are protectiveofthepublic'shealth withrespecttoPM2.slevelsandsatisfytherequirementsofSection110(a)(2)(G).However,Illinoishasthelegal authority needed to amend emergencyepisode rules setforthinPart 244 toincludePM2.spursuanttoSections4,9,10and 27oftheAct.[415ILCS5/4,9,10,and271.TheIllinoisEPAcommitstosubmitting suchamendmentsto theBoardonceUSEPApromulgatessignificantharmlevels,i.e.,the levelsneededto establish concentrationlevelsusedto protectagainstemergencyepisode levelsofPM2.s.The Illinois EPAbelieves thatinall casesthecurrent levels in Illinois' rules,whicharebasedonPMloconcentration levels,willalso,servetoprotectagainstemergencyepisode levels ofPM2.s.ROCKFORD-4302NorthMainStreet,RocMord,IL61103-(815)987-7760.DESPLAINES-9511W.HarrisonSt.,DesPlaines,IL60016-(847)294-4000ELGIN-595SouthState,Elgin,IL60123-(847)608-3131.PEORIA-5415N.UniversitySt.,Peoria,1L61614-(309)693-5463BUREAUOFLAND-PEORIA-7620N.UniversitySt.,Peoria,IL61614-(309)693-5462.CHAMPAIGN-2125SouthFirstStreet, Champaign,IL61820-(217) 278-5800COLLINSVILLE-2009MallStreet,Collinsville,IL62234-(618)346-5120.MARION-2309W.MainSt.,Suite116,Marion,IL62959-(618)993-7200Ifyouhaveany questionsorcomments,pleasedirectthemtoRobertKaleelofmystaffat2171524-4343.Sincerely$6-Laurel KroackBureauChief,BureauofAirIllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency1021NorthGrand AvenueEast,P.O. Box19276Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
#### The State ex rel. Neumann, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Neumann v. Indus. Comm,*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 134.]

(No. 96-2444

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Mitchell, Allen, Catalano & Boda Co., L.P.A., William A. Catalano*and *Richard A. Cline,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Laurel Blum Mazorow,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for relief consistent with *State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would affirm the court of appeals.

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leshawn J. Simmons, Appellant.

[814 NYS2d 827]

*1220Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Campbell, J.), rendered September 16, 2004, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (three counts), gang assault in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts).

The victim here was assaulted and robbed by a group of five people, one of whom was defendant. As a consequence, defendant was indicted and subsequently convicted of, among other things, two counts of robbery in the first degree for which he was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

We find no merit to defendant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence or that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, although we do observe that County Court would have been better advised to have inquired whether defendant was aware of the conflict complained of here.

We are of a different view, however, regarding defendant’s contention that County Court improperly permitted evidence of defendant’s involvement in an assault that occurred one day before the incident that gave rise to the instant trial. The People offered and the court received evidence that defendant and another individual confronted a person at his apartment, at which time defendant struck that victim with a baton. This otherwise inadmissible evidence was offered as being probative of a common scheme or plan *(see People v Molineux,*168 NY 264 [1901]). The People urge that the similarities of the two crimes, i.e., assaults involving multiple people, the use of weapons and that they each occurred in public places, satisfies the common scheme element espoused in *Molineux.*We disagree. “Mere similarity . . . between the crime charged and the uncharged crime is not sufficient” to establish a common scheme or plan as envisioned by *Molineux (People v Fiore,*34 NY2d 81, 84-85 [1974]). Rather, the evidence must tend to establish a scheme “embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others” *(People v Molineux, supra*at 293). Put another way, there must be “ ‘such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of *1221which they are the individual manifestations’ ” *(People v Fiore, supra*at 85, quoting 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 304, at 202 [3d ed]). There is nothing in this record to suggest that the two crimes are so unique that one could conclude that each was perpetrated by one and the same person. Moreover, the proof here was not so overwhelming that we can conclude that the error was harmless. Accordingly, a new trial is warranted.

Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Cortland County for a new trial.
118 STAT. 1202 PUBLIC LAW 108–316—OCT. 5, 2004

Public Law 108–316

108th Congress

An Act

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Williamson

County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project, 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. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the ‘‘Williamson

County Water Recycling Act of 2004’’.

(b) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Title XVI of Public Law 102–

575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by inserting after section

1635 the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 1636. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS, WATER RECYCLING AND

REUSE PROJECT.

‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the

Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas, is authorized to participate

in the design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities

to reclaim and reuse water in Williamson County, Texas.

‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs of the project

described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 percent of the total

cost.

‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide funds for

the operation and maintenance of the project described in subsection

(a).’’.

43 USC

390h–17a.

Williamson

County Water

Recycling Act of

2004.

43 USC 390h

note.

Oct. 5, 2004

[H.R. 1732]

PUBLIC LAW 108–316—OCT. 5, 2004 118 STAT. 1203

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1732:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–364 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–288 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Nov. 17, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

The table of sections in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects

Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting

after the item relating to section 1635 the following:

‘‘Sec. 1636. Williamson County, Texas, Water Recycling and Reuse Project.’’.

Approved October 5, 2004.

106 Stat. 4600.
§ 3.20 Standards for suspending or terminating collection activities. ( a ) An agency will follow the standards specified in 31 CFR part 903 for the suspension or termination of collection activity pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711, except where otherwise authorized or required by law.
( b ) CCC will, in exercising its authority pursuant to section 4 of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b) to make final and conclusive settlement and adjustment of any CCC claims, follow the standards specified in 31 CFR 903.2, 903.3, 903.4, and 903.5(c) and (d), for the suspension or termination of collection activities with regard to debts owed to CCC, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition to the bases for the termination of collection activities specified in 31 CFR 903.3, CCC may terminate collection activities when the approving official with the authority to terminate collection activities with regard to the debt has determined that such action is in the interest of CCC.
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.1 General purpose and scope. ( a ) This part establishes the regulations under which the Secretary will administer the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (Summer EBT) Program. Section 13A of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act authorizes the Secretary to establish a Program under which States, and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) that administer the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), electing to participate in the Summer EBT Program must, beginning in Summer 2024 and annually thereafter, issue to each eligible household Summer EBT benefits.
( b ) This program was established for the purpose of providing nutrition assistance during the summer months for each eligible child, to ensure continued access to food when school is not in session for the summer.
§ 319.37-9 Treatment of plants for planting; costs and charges for inspection and treatment; treatments applied outside the United States. ( a ) The services of a Plant Protection and Quarantine inspector during regularly assigned hours of duty and at the usual places of duty shall be furnished without cost to the importer.[2] No charge will be made to the importer for Government-owned or -controlled special inspection facilities and equipment used in treatment, but the inspector may require the importer to furnish any special labor, chemicals, packing materials, or other supplies required in handling an importation under the regulations in this subpart. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs will not be responsible for any costs or charges, other than those indicated in this section.
( b ) Any treatment performed in the United States on plants for planting must be performed at the time of importation into the United States. Treatment shall be performed by an inspector or under an inspector's supervision at a Government-operated special inspection facility, except that an importer may have such treatment performed at a nongovernmental facility if the treatment is performed at nongovernment expense under the supervision of an inspector and in accordance with part 305 of this chapter and in accordance with any treatment required by an inspector as an emergency measure in order to prevent the dissemination of any quarantine pests. However, treatment may be performed at a nongovernmental facility only in cases of unavailability of government facilities and only if, in the judgment of an inspector, the plants for planting can be transported to such nongovernmental facility without the risk of introduction into the United States of quarantine pests.
( c ) Any treatment performed outside the United States must be monitored and certified by an APHIS inspector or an official from the NPPO of the exporting country. If monitored and certified by an official of the NPPO of the exporting country, then a phytosanitary certificate must be issued with the following declaration: “The consignment of (fill in taxon) has been treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305.” During the entire interval between treatment and export, the consignment must be stored and handled in a manner that prevents any infestation by quarantine pests.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0190) Footnotes -
319.37-9
[2] Provisions relating to costs for other services of an inspector are contained in part 354 of this chapter.
98-1107.

#### Collins v. Down River Specialties, Inc..

Cuyahoga App. No. 70842. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause consolidated with 98-1099, *supra.*

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
§ 3100.44 Implementation. ( a ) It is the intent of the Department to carry out its program of management of the cultural environment in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Implementation must consider natural resource utilization, must exemplify good government, and must constitute a noninflationary approach which makes the best use of tax dollars.
( b ) The commitment to cultural resource protection is vital. That commitment will be balanced with the multiple departmental goals of food and fiber production, environmental protection, natural resource and energy conservation, and rural development. It is essential that all of these be managed to reduce conflicts between programs. Positive management of the cultural environment can contribute to achieving better land use, protection of rural communities and farm lands, conservation of energy, and more efficient use of resources.
( c ) In reaching decisions, the long-term needs of society and the irreversible nature of an action must be considered. The Department must act to preserve future options; loss of important cultural resources must be avoided except in the face of overriding national interest where there are no reasonable alternatives.
( d ) To assure the protection of Native American religious practices, traditional religious leaders and other native leaders (or their representatives) should be consulted about potential conflict areas in the management of the cultural environment and the means to reduce or eliminate such conflicts.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2307 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2307

  To require the Secretary of State to submit to Congress reports on 
                       water sharing with Mexico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 10, 2013

 Mr. Vela (for himself and Mr. Conaway) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of State to submit to Congress reports on 
                       water sharing with Mexico.

    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 ``Working to Address Treaty 
Enforcement Rapidly for Texas Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTS ON WATER SHARING WITH MEXICO.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a 
report--
            (1) not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, and quarterly thereafter, describing efforts by 
        Mexico to meet the treaty obligations of Mexico to deliver 
        water to the Rio Grande, in accordance with the treaty between 
        the United States and Mexico entitled ``Utilization of Waters 
        of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande'' 
        (done at Washington, February 3, 1944); and
            (2) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
        this Act, and annually thereafter, describing the benefits to 
        the United States of the document entitled ``Interim 
        International Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River Basin 
        through 2017 and Extension of Minute 318 Cooperative Measures 
        to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake 
        in the Mexicali Valley, Baja California'' (done at Coronado, 
        California, November 20, 2012 (commonly referred to as ``Minute 
        Number 319'')).
    (b) Action by Secretary of State.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Secretary of State shall not extend Minute Number 
319 if the Secretary fails to comply with the requirements of this Act.
                                 <all>
```