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

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20020

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Israel Zenil Covarrubias, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-225-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Israel Zenil Covarrubias appeals his sentence for illegal reentry. 

Specifically, he contends that the district court violated his right to be present 

at sentencing by imposing 14 discretionary conditions of supervised release 

in the written judgment without orally pronouncing them during his 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

July 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20020 Document: 00516383586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
No. 21-20020

2

sentencing hearing. The challenged conditions appear in the judgment as 

“standard” conditions two through 15.

The conditions were listed in an appendix to the presentence report 

(PSR) and were listed in or incorporated by reference in a standing order of

the Southern District of Texas. Because the district court did not reference 

the conditions or orally adopt one of the documents listing the conditions

during the sentencing hearing, Zenil Covarrubias did not have an opportunity 

to object, and we review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Diggles, 

957 F.3d 551, 559-60 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 825 (2020);

United States v. Grogan, 977 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2020). 

The district court did not state the conditions, allude to them by 

shorthand reference, or orally adopt the PSR, its appendix, or the standing 

order at sentencing. Cf. United States v. Martinez, 15 F.4th 1179, 1180-81 (5th 

Cir. 2021); Grogan, 977 F.3d at 351-54. Accordingly, the imposition of the 

conditions in the written judgment violated Zenil Covarrubias’s right to be 

present at sentencing. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-63 & n.5. We thus 

VACATE the judgment in part and REMAND the case for the limited 

purpose of amending the written judgment to conform to the oral 

pronouncement of sentence. See Diggles, 957 F.3d at 559-63; United States v. 

Mireles, 471 F.3d 551, 558 (5th Cir. 2006).

Case: 21-20020 Document: 00516383586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
#### In the Matter of Street Vendor Project et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 10, 2007;

decided December 18, 2007

Reported below, 43 AD3d 345.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         70
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,706
<PP&E>                                           5,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               23
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,836
<SALES>                                          8,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,035
<CGS>                                            7,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       11
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  89
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    139
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 84
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        84
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .018
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .018
        

</TABLE>
#### § 920.1 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the Department of whom authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated.
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:06-cv-00708-CSC Document 42 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 8
§ 110.106 Participation in a hearing. ( a ) Unless otherwise limited by this part or by the Commission, participants in a hearing may submit: ( 1 ) Initial and concluding written statements of position on the issues;
( 2 ) Written questions to the presiding officer; and
( 3 ) Written responses and rebuttal testimony to the statements of other participants.
( b ) Participants in an oral hearing may also submit oral statements, questions, responses and rebuttal testimony.
( c ) A participant in an import licensing hearing establishing that his interest may be affected, may be accorded additional procedural rights under subpart G of part 2 with respect to resolution of domestic factual issues regarding the public health, safety and environment of the United States, and the protection of the United States public against domestic theft, diversion or sabotage, to the extent that such issues are separable from the nondomestic issues associated with the license application.
#### § 984.41 Vacancy.

Any vacancy occasioned by the removal, resignation, disqualification, or death of any member of alternate, or any need to select a successor through failure of any person selected as a member or alternate to qualify, shall be recognized by the Board causing a nomination to be made by the appropriate group and certifying to the Secretary a new nominee within 60 calendar days.

[39 FR 35330, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended at 41 FR 31543, July 29, 1976]
ex10-11.htm


    Exhibit 10.11

    
 

    
      AMENDMENT
TO PROMISSORY NOTE

      


      This Amendment to Promissory Note
(“Amendment Agreement”) is by and between Jeannot McCarthy (“Holder”) and Patio
Bahia, Inc., formerly known as Jeannot’s Furnishings of Florida, Inc., a Florida
corporation ("Maker") and is entered into October 20, 2009 and effective as of
May 8, 2009.

      


      WHEREAS, Maker has delivered to the
Holder that certain Promissory Note of the Maker (“Promissory Note”) dated May
8, 2007 in the principal amount of $5,000, which Promissory Note bears a
maturity date of the earlier of (a) May 8, 2009 or (b) the date the Maker
generates a minimum of $300,000 in revenues/sales (the “Maturity Date”), and all
principal and interest due to date thereunder remain unpaid as of the date
hereof.

      


      WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to
amend the Promissory Note to extend the Maturity Date..

      


      WHEREAS, the Holder has all requisite
power, authority, and capacity to enter into this Amendment
Agreement.

      


      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Holder and the
Maker hereby agree to amend and revise the Promissory Notes as
follows:

      


      
        	
                1.  

              	
                Recitals.  The
      foregoing recitals are true and
correct.

              


      

      


      
        	
                2.  

              	
                Extension of Maturity
      Date.  Maker and the Holders hereby agree to extend the
      Maturity Date of the Promissory Note, and the Maturity Date of the
      Promissory Note is hereby extended, to the earlier of (a) December 31,
      2010, or (b) the date the Maker generates a minimum of $300,000 in
      revenues/sales.

              


      

      


      
        	
                3.  

              	
                No Other
      Changes.  Except as specifically set forth herein, all
      other terms and conditions of the Promissory Note remain in full force and
      effect.

              


      

      


      
        	
                4.  

              	
                Counterpart
      Signatures. This Amendment Agreement may be executed in two or more
      counterparts, all of which when taken together shall be considered one and
      the same agreement and shall become effective when counterparts have been
      signed by each party and delivered to the other party, it being understood
      that both parties need not sign the same
  counterpart.

              


      

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to
Promissory Note is executed as of October 20, 2009 and effective May 8,
2009.

      


      Patio Bahia, Inc.

      


      


      By:
________________________________

      Jeannot
McCarthy, Chief Executive Officer

      


      


      ____________________________________

      Jeannot
McCarthy
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06-cr-210-MEF

 )

MELISSA WARD )

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM

TO THE HONORABLE CHARLES S. COODY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE:

Comes now the United States of America, by and through its Attorney for the Middle District

of Alabama, and represents and shows unto the Court that there is pending in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama an Indictment against Melissa Ward now in

custody of Russell County Jail, Phenix City, Alabama, and that said cause is set for arraignment at

Montgomery, Alabama, in this Honorable Court on October 25, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

WHEREFORE, the United States Attorney prays that your Honor will direct theClerk of this

Court to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to Russell

County Jail, Phenix City, Alabama, commanding them to deliver said prisoner to any United States

Marshal or Deputy United States Marshal and directing said Marshal or Deputy to bring said prisoner

before this Honorable Court to be held at Montgomery, Alabama, on October 25, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

Respectfully submitted this the 14th of September, 2006.

LEURA GARRETT CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

christopher@usdoj.gov

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06-cr-210-MEF

 )

MELISSA WARD )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, filed

September 14, 2006, and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby DIRECTED

to issue a WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to Russell County Jail,

Phenix City, Alabama, commanding it to deliver Melissa Ward to any United States Marshal or

Deputy United States Marshal, and directing said Marshal or Deputy to bring said prisoner before

this court, to be held at Montgomery, Alabama, on October 25, 2006, at 10:00 am, and to return the

prisoner to said official when the court shall have finished with her.

DONE this the ______ day of September, 2006.

______________________________

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00210-MEF-CSC Document 4-2 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1013.44 Right to administrative offset.

The amount of any penalty or assessment which has become final, or for which a judgment has been entered under § 1013.42 or § 1013.43 of this part, or any amount agreed upon in a compromise or settlement under § 1013.46 of this part, may be collected by administrative offset under 31 U.S.C. 3716, except that an administrative offset may not be made under this subsection against a refund of an overpayment of Federal taxes, then or later owing by the United States to the defendant.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANA TERESA PENA , Appellant,

v.

ATTILA TINICS , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3276

[ July 18, 2019 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Andrea Ruth Gundersen , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 16

- 6742 (41/93)

.
Jorge Garcia

- Menocal of Garcia

- Menocal Irias & Pastori LLP, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Marcy S. Resnik and Howard N. Kahn of Kahn & Resnick, PL, Dania, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , T AYLOR and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Harrell *v.*Davis Wagon Company.

Atkinson, J.

The Davis Wagon Company instituted a common-law action against W. H. and E. I. Harrell, to recover a stated amount alleged to be due on a promissory note. Each of the defendants was personally served, and the petition and process were returnable to the May term, 1911, of the superior court. Neither defendant appeared; and at that term, on the call of the appearance docket, the judge marked the ease in “default.” At the same term the judge also entered a final judgment for the plaintiff, and within thirty days thereafter execution issued *128arid was levied. One of the defendants resisted the enforcement of the execution by affidavit of illegality, attacking the judgment and execution as void on the ground that the judge was without authority of law to render the judgment at the appearance term. By consent of the parties the judge tried the illegality ease without the intervention of a jury upon an agreed statement of facts as stated above. A judgment was rendered ordering the dismissal of the illegality and directing the execution to proceed. *Held:*

June 13, 1913.

Affidavit of illegality of execution. Before Judge Frank Park. Decatur superior court. July *5,*1912.

*B. G. Hartsfield*and *A. B. Gonger,*for plaintiff in error.

*J: G. Hale,*contra.

After entry of default, there being no statute specially authorizing .a final trial at the first term, the judge was without authority of law to enter final judgment at the first term. Civil Code, § 5661; see also *State*v. *Gaskill,*68 *Ga.*518. The provisions of the constitution (Civil Code, § 6516), and the rules of court in pursuance thereof (Civil Code, §§ 6295, 6296), for rendition of judgment by the court without a jury in suits on unconditional contracts in writing, when considered in connection with the Civil Code, § 5661, merely authorize judgments in the class of eases mentioned to be rendered by the court without the intervention of a jury, and do not qualify the provisions of § 5661 that the trial shall not be had at the first term. It follows that the judgment and execution based thereon were void. The judgment being void, illegality was a proper remedy to resist the enforcement of the execution. *Parker*v. *Callaway,*128 *Ga.*119 (57 S. E. 229) ; *Hart*v. *Lazaron,*46 *Ga.*396; *Lott*v. *Wood,*135 *Ga.*821 (70 S-. E. 661).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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. 09-20004

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM ANTONIO QUINTANILLA-QUINTANILLA, also known as William

Quintanilla, also known as William Antonio Quintanilla, also known as William

A Quintanilla,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-99-ALL

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent William

Antonio Quintanilla-Quintanilla moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). QuintanillaQuintanilla filed a response. Thereafter, the FPD filed as supplemental letter

brief, and Quintanilla-Quintanilla filed no further response. Our independent

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-20004

2

review of the record, counsel’s brief and supplemental letter brief, and

Quintanilla-Quintanilla’s response discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal.

 Quintanilla-Quintanilla’s claim of duress is unsupported by any evidence and

contradicted by the record, and his complaints about his sentence do not raise

a non-frivolous issue given the standard of review and the colloquy in the record.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1053 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1053

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 2006.
    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds 
vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is 
presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
legislative day of September 29, 2006.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
(May 11, 1970)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Junius Ellis Avery, Appellant, v. Warden, Manhattan House of Detention for Men, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. The stay granted by order of this court, entered on April 27, 1970, is hereby vacated. No opinion. Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.
§ 1021.210 DOE decisionmaking. ( a ) For each DOE proposal, DOE shall coordinate its NEPA review with its decisionmaking. Sections 1021.211 through 1021.214 of this part specify how DOE will coordinate its NEPA review with decision points for certain types of proposals (40 CFR 1505.1(b)).
( b ) DOE shall complete its NEPA review for each DOE proposal before making a decision on the proposal (e.g., normally in advance of, and for use in reaching, a decision to proceed with detailed design), except as provided in 40 CFR 1506.1 and §§ 1021.211 and 1021.216 of this part.
( c ) During the decisionmaking process for each DOE proposal, DOE shall consider the relevant NEPA documents, public and agency comments (if any) on those documents, and DOE responses to those comments, as part of its consideration of the proposal (40 CFR 1505.1(d)) and shall include such documents, comments, and responses as part of the administrative record (40 CFR 1505.1(c)).
( d ) If an EIS or EA is prepared for a DOE proposal, DOE shall consider the alternatives analyzed in that EIS or EA before rendering a decision on that proposal; the decision on the proposal shall be within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EA or EIS (40 CFR 1505.1(e)).
( e ) When DOE uses a broad decision (such as one on a policy or program) as a basis for a subsequent narrower decision (such as one on a project or other site-specific proposal), DOE may use tiering (40 CFR 1502.20) and incorporation of material by reference (40 CFR 1502.21) in the NEPA review for the subsequent narrower proposal.
Appendixes A–C to Chapter 7 [Reserved]           **Parent topic:** SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS
#### § 1304.108 Appealing denials of access.

If access to records is denied by the Privacy Act Officer, the requester may file an appeal in writing. The appeal should be directed to Executive Director; U.S. Technical Review Board; 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300; Arlington, VA 22201. The appeal letter must:

Specify the denied records that are still sought; and

State why denial by the Privacy Act Officer is erroneous.

The Executive Director or his or her designee will respond to such appeals within 20 working days of the receipt of the appeal letter in the Board offices. The appeal determination will explain the basis of the decision to deny or grant the appeal.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 104

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Homeland Security 

in the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005

Mr. COX (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Homeland Security in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Homeland Se4 curity (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $15,787,494 for the One Hundred 

9 Ninth Congress. 
2

•HRES 104 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $7,462,855 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2005, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2006; and 

7 (2) not more than $8,324,639 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2006, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2007. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
§ 110.135 Notice of rulemaking. ( a ) Upon approval of an amendment, the Commission will publish in the Federal Register a notice of rule-making which includes a statement of its basis and purpose, effective date and, where appropriate, any significant variations from the amendment as proposed in any notice of proposed rulemaking.
( b ) The effective date of an amendment will normally be no earlier than 30 days after publication of the notice of rulemaking, unless the Commission for good cause provides otherwise in the notice.
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00731-MHT-SRW Document 5 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 2