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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 August 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41582 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TOMAS NMI SANCHEZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-298-1

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tomas Nmi Sanchez-Medina appeals his 50-month sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien unlawfully found in the United States following deportation after having been previously convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sanchez asserts that the district court plainly erred in assigning him three criminal history points for his prior conviction for evading arrest. He further maintains that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) areNo. 02-41582 -2- unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) and United States v. Moore , 997 F.2d 30, 33 (5th Cir. 1993), Sanchez’s 2000 evading arrest conviction arguably should not have been counted for purposes of his criminal history score. However, because the district court could, on remand, impose the same 50-month sentence, Sanchez fails to demonstrate that his substantial rights were affected by the district court’s error in calculating his criminal history category. United States v. Wheeler , 322 F.3d 823, 828 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Leonard , 157 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, Sanchez fails to satisfy the plain error standard of review. Id. Although Sanchez urges us to adopt the reasoning of the Third Circuit as set forth in United States v. Knight , 266 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2001), it is the firm rule of this circuit that one panel may not overrule the decisions of another without en banc consideration or an intervening Supreme Court opinion. See Hogue v. Johnson , 131 F.3d 466, 491 (5th Cir. 1997). Neither condition is present in this case. Thus, Sanchez is not entitled to any relief, as set forth in Leonard and its progeny. Sanchez concedes that his challenge to the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. ApprendiNo. 02-41582 -3- 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 the precedent set in 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 district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

GRACE, INC.; ENGAGE MIAMI, INC.; 

SOUTH DADE BRANCH OF THE 

NAACP; MIAMI-DADE BRANCH OF 

THE NAACP; CLARICE COOPER; 

YANELIS VALDES; JARED 

JOHNSON; AND ALEXANDRA 

CONTRERAS, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

CITY OF MIAMI, 

 Defendant(s). 

_________________________________/ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CASE NO.: 22-CV-24066-KMM 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Kevin R. Jones is admitted to practice in this Court and 

hereby appears as counsel of record for the Defendant, CITY OF MIAMI. All parties are requested 

to direct all correspondence, pleadings, and orders in this matter to the e-mail addresses listed 

below. Accordingly, and consistent with the purposes of Local Rule 11.1, Kevin R. Jones 

designates the primary and secondary e-mail addresses for service purposes, as follows: 

Primary Email: KRJones@miamigov.com 

Secondary Email: JMDelOro@miamigov.com

Respectfully submitted, 

VICTORIA MÉNDEZ, City Attorney 

KEVIN R. JONES, Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for City of Miami 

444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 945 

Miami, FL 33130-1910 

Telephone: (305) 416-1800 

Facsimile: (305) 400-5071 

Primary Email: krjones@miamigov.com 

Secondary Email: JMDeloro@miamigov.com 

 

By: /s/ Kevin R. Jones 

Kevin R. Jones, Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 0119067 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MIAMI’S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND 

DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES 

CASE NO.: 22-CV-24066-KMM 

Page 2 of 2

1981033

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 3rd day of July, 2023, the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record or parties identified on the attached Service List in the 

manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or 

in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive 

electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. 

By: /s/ Kevin R. Jones 

Kevin R. Jones, Deputy City Attorney 

Florida Bar No. 0119067 

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 79 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5480 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5480

             For the relief of Michael and Julie Schindler.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 17, 2000

  Mr. Chabot introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             For the relief of Michael and Julie Schindler.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE RELIEF.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, from any funds in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,500,000 to Michael 
and Julie Schindler of St. Bernard, Ohio, as compensation for the 
wrongful death of their son, Airman Basic Micha J. Schindler, on 
September 12, 1999, during a military training activity.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS FEES.

    The representative of an individual may not receive, for services 
rendered in connection with a claim under section 1, more than 10 
percent of the amount appropriated under that section. Whoever violates 
this section shall be fined not more than $5,000.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-cv-23171-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARBITRADE LTD.;

CRYPTOBONTIX INC.;

TORY R.J. HOGG;

JAMES L. GOLDBERG;

STEPHEN L. BRAVERMAN;

MAX W. BARBER;

SION TRADING FZE,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE is before the Court Defendant Max W Barber’s Motion for Extension of 

Time to Respond, Dismissal of Motion Order on Default Procedures, ECF No. [56] (“Motion”). 

The Motion requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s motion for Order on Default Procedures and 

enter an order allowing 60 days extension to file an answer to the Complaint for Defendants Max 

W Barber and SION Trading FZE. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the 

applicable law and is otherwise fully advised.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [56], is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendant Max W Barber’s request for an extension 

of time to respond to the Complaint. Defendant Max W Barber shall respond to the 

Complaint on or before March 2, 2023.

Case 1:22-cv-23171-BB Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 22-cv-23171-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

2

2. The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it requests the Court strike its Order on 

Default Procedures, ECF No. [43].

3. Because Defendant SION Trading FZE is an entity it must be represented by counsel 

and cannot be represented by an individual appearing pro se. The extension of time 

requested by Defendant Max W. Barber on behalf of Defendant Sion Trading FZE is 

therefore DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 16, 2023.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Max W Barber

1028 S 1900 E

Salt Lake City, UT 84108-1861

Pro Se

Case 1:22-cv-23171-BB Document 57 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/16/2023 Page 2 of 2
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
          
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996   
<CASH>                                    4,229
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            18,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                880
<INVENTORY>                                  65
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         30,987
<PP&E>                                    8,207
<DEPRECIATION>                            5,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           36,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    19,358
<BONDS>                                   2,062
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  5,535
<OTHER-SE>                               10,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             36,990
<SALES>                                  22,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         22,394
<CGS>                                    19,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            19,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           73
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             487
<INCOME-TAX>                                197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         288
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                288
<ESP-PRIMARY>                               .20
<ESP-DILUTED>                               .20
        

</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23238-KMW

DOUG LONGHINI,

Plaintiff,

v. 

THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________________/

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Plaintiff, DOUG LONGHINI, and Defendant, THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, 

LLC, hereby advise the Court that the parties have reached an agreement to settle the instant case 

pending execution of certain terms in the Settlement Agreement. The Parties will file a Stipulation 

dismissing this Action with prejudice once this is completed, which they reasonably expect to do 

no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Notice. Accordingly, the Parties, respectfully 

request that the Court vacate all currently set dates and deadlines in this case as to this Defendant. 

Respectfully submitted this January 24, 2023. 

/s/ Anthony J. Perez

ANTHONY J. PEREZ

Florida Bar No. 535451 

GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 

350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 

Coral Gables, Fl 33134 

Telephone: (305) 553- 3464 

Email: ajperez@lawgmp.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

/s/ Jaime Pozo

JAIME POZO

Florida Bar No: 496561 

POZO-DIAZ & POZO, P.A.

9260 Sunset Drive, Suite 119 

Miami, Florida 33173 

Telephone: (786) 866-8124 

Email: rsuarez@pdplawyers.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-23238-KMW Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court 

by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify a copy of the foregoing was sent by CM/ECF to 

all counsel of record on this January 24, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted,

 GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 

 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 

 Primary E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com

 Secondary E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com; 

dramos@lawgmp.com 

 By: /s/ Anthony J. Perez 

 ANTHONY J. PEREZ

 

Case 1:22-cv-23238-KMW Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/24/2023 Page 2 of 2
250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

To: Deborah Jeffrey

Inspector General 

From: Lori Giblin/s/

Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending March 31, 2017 – Revised to 

include susceptible program names

Date: May 8, 2018

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which has not yet begun for FY2017. 

Therefore, during the reporting period covering 1/01/2017 through 03/31/2017, CNCS 

has not identified any high-dollar overpayments in its four susceptible programs: 

AmeriCorps State and National, the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), the Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP), and the Senior Companion Program (SCP).

This report upholds the Corporation’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order’s 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments.
#### WILLIAM S. VERPLANCK and others, Executors, etc., of JOHN. P. DE WENT, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*ADELE DE WENT and others, Appellants.

*OonsirucMon of*will— *advameement*— when *interest commences to rim on.*

Appeal from a judgment entered upon tbe trial of this action at the Special Term.

The action was brought to obtain the construction of a will.

The court at G-eneral Term said: “We see no reason for disturbing the judgment at Special Term. The eighth clause of the will gives to Erancis A. He Went, the testator’s son, one equal share or tenth part of his estate. The ninth clause charges him with an advancement of $5,000, £ to go in diminution ’ of his share.

The first codicil provides that Erancis A. He Went having died, that said tenth part £ shall be held in trust by the executors,’ and the income of £ this share ’ be used for the benefit of his widow and children, until they shall arrive at twenty-one, and then to pay over £ said one-tenth part ’ to said children as they arrive at the age of twenty-one. The intention of the testator is manifest. He desired simply to bequeath the share Francis would have received by his will, viz.: one-tenth part, less the $5,000 advancement, in trust for the benefit of his widow and children.

There is no inconsistency between the will and the codicil upon the construction given to it by the judgment below. Any other construction would be forced and unnatural, and would make an inconsistency where none exists.

The advancement, by the ninth clause of the will, is to go in ■ *612diminution of the respective shares ‘ on the settlement of my estate.’

This must be held to mean, when my death and the probate of my will places my estate in a position of settlement.

The advancement bears interest from the time of the probate of the will. Unless specially directed by the will, advancements do not bear interest, during the life of the testator, from the time of the making of the advancement. But in charging the advancement, it is just as though the testator had said: ‘A legatee under my will owes my estate so many dollars, and it is to be collected out of his legacy, together with interest thereon from the probate of my will.’ It stands upon the same footing as any other debt due the estate; the time the debt is due being fixed as the day the will takes effect, its collection being deferred to the date of distribution of the legatee’s share. It forms a portion of the assets of the estate, and the legatee receiving his share of it upon the distribution of his share.

The judgment must be affirmed.”

*L.*Hoyt, for the appellants. *0.*Wheaton, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Peatt, J.

Present — BaeNAbd, P. J., Peatt and DtemAN, *JJ.*

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 12


                   360 COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                             (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)




                                 For the Year Ended December 31, 1996
                        -------------------------------------------------------
Earnings                   1996        1995      1994        1993       1992
                        ----------  --------- ---------- ----------- ---------
Income (loss) before
  cumulative effects of
  changes in
  accounting principles $   59,519  $  (1,695)$ (19,757) $  (49,897)  $(62,220)
Adjustment for minority
  interest in majority
  owned affiliates          46,622     34,269     22,110      9,697      4,467
Share of distributed
  income of less-than
  50%-owned affiliates
  net of equity pick-up    (27,838)    (7,206)   (10,899)   (10,466)    (5,320)
 Adjustment for 50%-
  owned affiliates         (10,327)    (4,847)    (4,966)    (1,727)   (13,376)
Capitalized interest        (2,234)    (1,553)    (1,097)      (712)    (1,061)
Income tax provision        57,829     25,405      5,697     (7,112)   (17,309)
                        ----------  --------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Subtotal                   123,571     44,373     (8,912)   (60,217)   (94,819)

Fixed charges
Interest charges           108,598    128,793     99,534     86,121     87,723
Interest portion of
  operating rents            6,753      5,868      4,115      2,524      1,851
Adjustment for 50%-
  owned affiliates           2,200      2,474      1,990      1,698      1,481
                        ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Total fixed charges        117,551    137,135    105,639     90,343     91,055
                        ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------  ----------
Earnings, as adjusted   $  241,121 $  181,508 $   96,727 $   30,126   $  (3,764)
                        ========== ========== ========== ==========  ==========
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges               2.05       1.32
                        ========== ==========


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

 NOTE: The ratio of earnings  to fixed  charges  have been  computed by dividing
       fixed charges into the sum of (a) income (loss) before cumulative effects
       of changes in accounting  principles,  less capitalized interest and with
       adjustments  to  appropriately  reflect  the  Company's   majority-owned,
       50%-owned, and less-than-50%-owned  affiliates, (b) income taxes, and (c)
       fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest on all indebtedness and
       the  interest   component  of  operating   rents,   with  adjustments  as
       appropriate to reflect the Company's  50%-owned  affiliates.  For each of
       the three years in the period ended  December  31,  1994,  the deficit of
       earnings to fixed charges was $8,912,000,  $60,217,000  and  $94,819,000,
       respectively.
027P15

#### Slate v. William Earl Huffstetler

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-727)

1.-

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Allowed
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 603

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 4, 1999

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation

AN ACT

To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of the Act popularly known as the ‘‘Death on the

High Seas Act’’ to aviation incidents.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 603 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT.

2 Section 40120(a) of title 49, United States Code, is

3 amended by inserting ‘‘(including the Act entitled ‘An Act

4 relating to the maintenance of actions for death on the

5 high seas and other navigable waters’, approved March 30,

6 1920, commonly known as the Death on the High Seas

7 Act (46 U.S.C. App. 761–767; 41 Stat. 537–538))’’ after

8 ‘‘United States’’.

9 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

10 The amendment made by section 1 applies to civil

11 actions commenced after the date of the enactment of this

12 Act and to civil actions that are not adjudicated by a court

13 of original jurisdiction or settled on or before such date

14 of enactment.

Passed the House of Representatives March 3,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 118 (Monday, June 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15423]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Economic Injury Disaster #9H52]


State of New York

    Albany County and the contiguous counties of Columbia, Greene, 
Schoharie, Schenectady, Saratoga, and Rensselaer in the State of New 
York constitute an economic injury disaster loan area due to an 
embankment failure (landslide) that occurred on May 16, 2000 in the 
Town of Bethlehem, as a result of heavy rainfall. Eligible small 
businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available 
elsewhere may file applications for economic injury assistance as a 
result of this disaster until the close of business on March 9, 2001 at 
the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. 
Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow 
Blvd, South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.
    The interest rate for eligible small businesses and small 
agricultural cooperatives is 4 percent.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59002)

    Dated: June 9, 2000.
Kris Swedin,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-15423 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P