alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50961 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AGUSTIN QUINTERO-JASSO,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-247-1-WWJ

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Agustin Quintero-Jasso appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Quintero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Quintero maintains that he pleadedNo. 02-50961 -2- guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
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. Quintero acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (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). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### McSwean *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Lem.*

(Decided February 3, 1914.

64 South. 543.)

1. *Witnesses; Bias; Examination.*— Where the witness was the complaining' party and a witness against the defendant, defendant was entitled to show that after he had the witness prosecuted for disturbing religious worship, witness had defendant arrested in this case, as such matter tended to show bias against the defendant.

*1632. *Same.*— It was competent on cross-examination of the state’s witness to show that defendant had protested against his daughter living in the same house with the witness, and that for this reason, the witness entertained had feelings towards accused.

S. *Same.*— In a criminal case any fact may he elicited on the cross-examination which tends to show a witness’s hostility towards the party against whom he testifies.

Appeal from Pike Law Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Borum.

Charlie McSwean was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

A. B. Foster, for appellant. No brief reached the Reporter.

■ R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

WALKER, P. J.

The person who made the complaint on which the appellant was prosecuted was a ■witness against him. The court sustained the objection of the solicitor to a question asked this witness on his cross-examination which sought to elicit the fact that it was ■ after the defendant had the witness prosecuted for disturbing religious worship that the witness swore out the warrant against the defendant. The evidence called for would have had a tendency to show that the witness was influenced by a hostile bias toward the defendant. On a cross-examination any fact may be elicited which tends to show the hostility of the witness toward the party against whom he *testifies.'*— Ala*bama Great Southern R. Co. v. Johnston,*128 Ala. 283, 29 South. 771; Jones on Evidence, § 828.

The court sustained an objection of the solicitor to a question asked by the defendant on his cross-examination of another witness which sought to elicit *the*fact that over the objection and protest of *the defend*
      *164ant and without his consent his daughter was living in the house with the witness, and that for that reason the feelings of the witness towards the defendant were bad. We are of opinion' that the court was in error in the above-mentioned rulings, each of which was duly excepted to. The effect of each of the rulings was to put an undue restraint upon the exercise of the right of cross-examination.

Reversed and remanded.
Amended Consulting Agreement - Sadegh Panahi



 
Exhibit 4.1(e)

 
Amendment No. 3 to Consulting Agreement

Between 
Calypte Biomedical Corporation 
And 
Sadegh Panahi 
 
This Agreement amends and modifies the Consulting Agreement between Calypte Biomedical Corporation (“Calypte” or the “Company”) and Sadegh Panahi (“Consultant”) dated November 20, 2002 and is
effective as of April 4, 2003. 
 
Whereas, the Company desires to
extend the time period during which Consultant will provide services to the Company pursuant to the above referenced Consulting Agreement and Consultant is agreeable to extending the time for providing such services. 
 
Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises set forth
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 

	 	1.	 	The term of Consultant’s Consulting Agreement shall be extended and, by virtue of this Amendment, shall terminate on September 30, 2003 rather than July 20,
2003. 

 

	 	2.	 	The Company will immediately grant Consultant a warrant to purchase five million (5,000,000) shares of the common stock of the Company at an exercise price of $0.025
per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $250,000. The Company will also immediately amend the February 14, 2003 warrant to purchase 3,000,000 shares of the registered stock of the Company from $0.05 per share, to $0.025 per share. Both warrants
will be immediately exercisable upon grant and will expire on June 30, 2003. All compensation pursuant to the Consulting Agreement and this Amendment is fully earned upon execution of this amendment. 

 

	 	3.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Consultant Agreement dated November 20, 2002 remain unchanged. 

 

	 Consultant:
	 	 CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL CORPORATION

	 	 	 	 	 
	
	 	 	 /s/    SADEGH
PANAHI        

	 	 By:
	 	 /s/    RICHARD BROUNSTEIN
        


	 	 	 Sadegh Panahi
	 	 	 	 Richard D. Brounstein
 Executive Vice President, CFO


 

25
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 23.1

             CONSENT OF BEARD & COMPANY, INC., INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Regarding:

1.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan (File #33357777).

2.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1993 Independent Directors Stock Option Plan (File #333-57783).

3.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan (File #33357803).

4.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (File
         #333-57825).

5.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1989 Stock Option Plan (File #333-57841).

6.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1988 Stock Option Plan (File #33357847).

7.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan (File #333-57851).

8.       Registration Statement on Form S-8 relating to the Main Street Bancorp,
         Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan (File #333-57703).

9.       Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the Shareholder
         Automatic Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan (File
         #333-57689).

10.      Registration Statement on Form S-3 relating to the MBNK Capital Trust I
         Preferred Securities (File #333-86943).


              We consent to the incorporation by reference in the above listed
Registration Statements of our report dated, January 21, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Main Street Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1999.




                                                    /s/ BEARD & COMPANY, INC.




Reading, Pennsylvania
March 24, 2000






                                       86
No structure - PMN substance has variable composition
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 10

- 00807

- CV

KAAREN CAMBIO AND CA LIFORNIA PIPE RECYCL ING, INC. , Appellant s
V.
JOE BRIERS, SOUTHWES T PIPE SERVICES, INC ., AND S.W. PIPE HOL DINGS, INC. , Appellee s Appeal from the 412th District Court of Brazoria County . (Tr. Ct. No. 4174 1 ).
This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 9, 2010. After due consideration, the Court grants appellant Kaaren Cambio’s motion to dismiss her appeal against appellees, Joe Briers, Southw est Pipe Services, Inc., and S.W

. Pipe Holdings, Inc

. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Cambio’s appeal.

The Court orders that Kaaren Cambio , Joe Briers, Southw est Pipe Services, Inc., and S.W . Pipe Holdings, Inc

. each pay their own appellate costs with respect to the dismissed appeal.

The Court further orders that Kaaren Cambio and her surety, U.S. Specialty Surety Company, are discharged from their liability on their supersedeas bond filed in the court below on January 3, 

### 2011.After submitting the remainder of the case on the appellate record and the

arguments properly raised by the pa rties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the portions of the trial court’s judgment awarding S.W. Pipe Holdings, Inc. $15,250 in damages and $45,000 in attorney’ s fees on its breach of contract claim against California Pipe Recycling, Inc

. Accordingly, the Court reverses these portions of the trial court’s judgment, renders judgment that S.W. Pipe Holdings, Inc. take nothing on its claim against California Pipe Recycling, Inc

. , and remands the case to the trial co urt for a new trial on the issue of California Pipe Recycling, Inc.’s attorney’s fees

.
The Court orders that S.W. Pipe Holdings, Inc. pay all of the appellate costs with respect to California Pipe Recycling, Inc.’s appeal.

The Court further orders that California Pipe Recycling, Inc

. and its surety, U.S. Specialty Surety Company, are discharged from their liability on their supersedeas bond filed in the court below on January 3, 

### 2011.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered May 12 , 201 5.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Lloyd.
** Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1). | The                Report                fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:                April                18, 2007 | /s/Jeffrey                R. Scheffer             |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                               | Jeffrey                R.                Scheffer |
|                                               | Chief                Executive Officer            |
§ 125.401 Crewmember record. ( a ) Each certificate holder shall— ( 1 ) Maintain current records of each crewmember that show whether or not that crewmember complies with this chapter (e.g., proficiency checks, airplane qualifications, any required physical examinations, and flight time records); and
( 2 ) Record each action taken concerning the release from employment or physical or professional disqualification of any flight crewmember and keep the record for at least 6 months thereafter.
( b ) Each certificate holder shall maintain the records required by paragraph (a) of this section at its principal operations base, or at another location used by it and approved by the Administrator.
( c ) Computer record systems approved by the Administrator may be used in complying with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1158/2004

of 24 June 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 24 June 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 7, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), General Motors Corporation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are General Motors Corporation, Detroit, MI; Chrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills; MI; and Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI. The nature and objectives of the venture are to research ways to transfer some electronics from the airbag control module to the airbag igniters. It is expected that the igniters will be able to diagnose their health better than the control module is able to do today. It is also expected that the system will become much more robust against wiring issues that are a primary issue with today's technology. To accomplish this objective, the parties are working together and with various potential suppliers to develop this technology. The parties expect to share the information generated with other suppliers and vehicle manufacturers in the future. To accomplish this objective, the parties will perform acts allowed by the National Cooperative Research and Production Act that would advance these goals.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-10622  Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3733 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3733

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 410 Huston Street in Altamont, Kansas, as the ``Myron V. George Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2004

 Mr. Ryun of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Moore, and 
 Mr. Tiahrt) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 410 Huston Street in Altamont, Kansas, as the ``Myron V. George Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. MYRON V. GEORGE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 410 Huston Street in Altamont, Kansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Myron V. George Post Office'' .
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Myron V. 
George Post Office.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 79 (Monday, April 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21797-21798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10274]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 1:00 p.m., Monday, May 1, 2000; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, 
May 2, 2000.

PLACE: Washington, D.C., at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: May 1 (Closed); May 2 (Open).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   

Monday, May 1--1:00 p.m. (Closed)

    1. Strategic Planning.
    2. Adjustments to International Mail Rates.
    3. Financial Performance.
    4. Office of Inspector General Midyear Budget and Performance 
Results.

[[Page 21798]]

    5. Compensation Issues.
    6. Personnel Matters.

Tuesday, May 2--8:30 a.m. (Open)

    1. Minutes of the Previous Meeting, April 3-4, 2000.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer.
    3. Briefing on the Census Mailing.
    4. Preview of National Postal Customer Council Day.
    5. Update on Delivery Confirmation.
    6. Tentative Agenda for the June 5-6, 2000, meeting in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Koerber, Secretary of 
the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Thomas J. Koerber,
Secretaruy.
[FR Doc. 00-10274 Filed 4-20-00; 2:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
§ 608.808 Right to offer to repay claim. ( a ) The debtor may offer to enter into a written agreement with the FCA to repay the amount of the claim. The acceptance of such an offer and the decision to enter into such a written agreement is at the discretion of the FCA.
( b ) If the debtor requests a repayment arrangement because payment of the amount due would create a financial hardship, the FCA shall analyze the debtor's financial condition. The FCA may enter into a written agreement with the debtor permitting the debtor to repay the debt in installments if the FCA determines, in its sole discretion, that payment of the amount due would create an undue financial hardship for the debtor. The written agreement shall set forth the amount and frequency of installment payments and shall, in accordance with § 608.812, provide for the imposition of charges for interest, penalties, and administrative costs unless waived by the FCA.
( c ) The written agreement may require the debtor to execute a confess-judgment note when the total amount of the deferred installments will exceed $750. The FCA shall provide the debtor with a written explanation of the consequences of signing a confess-judgment note. The debtor shall sign a statement acknowledging receipt of the written explanation. The statement shall recite that the written explanation was read and understood before execution of the note and that the debtor signed the note knowingly and voluntarily. Documentation of these procedures will be maintained in the FCA's file on the debtor.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of the Chief Executive Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350****(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”)certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005 of TSFG (the “Report”):(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of TSFG.   */s/ Mack I Whittle, Jr.*  * *Mack I. Whittle, Jr.  Chief Executive Officer  The South Financial Group, Inc.  November 14, 2005  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been providedto The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
77