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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 September 27, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40168 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, also known as Carlos Alejandro Rivera-Perez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-03-CR-930-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Martin Martinez-Carrillo appeals his guilty-plea conviction of and sentence for being found in the United States after previously being deported. Martinez-Carrillo argues that plain error occurred at sentencing when the Government did not verbally recommend that he be sentenced at the low end of the guideline range as required by the plea agreement and instead attempted toinfluence the court by repeating negative facts about MartinezCarrillo to the court.No. 04-40168 -2- The Government’s promise to so recommend was satisfied by the inclusion of the terms of the plea agreement in the presentence report. See United States v. Reeves , 255 F.3d 208, 210-11 (5th Cir. 2001). Martinez-Carrillo’s argument that the Government breached the plea agreement by emphasizing his past involvement with firearms is also unavailing. The prosecutor’s comments regarding Martinez-Carrillo’s criminal history were in direct response to the court’s question as to whether there was any redeeming information about Martinez-Carrillo that it had overlooked. Such efforts by the Government to provide relevant factual information to the court at sentencing do not violate a plea agreement. See United States v. Block , 660 F.2d 1086, 1091 (5th Cir. 1981). Our determination that no plain error occurred at sentencing is supported by the fact that the Government did not raise the issue of sentencing Martinez-Carrillo to the high end of the guideline range but, in fact, it was the court that raised the issue of a possible upwards departure from the guideline range. See United States v. Wilder , 15 F.3d 1292, 1301 (5th Cir. 1994). Martinez-Carrillo has not demonstrated plain

error. See Reeves , 255 F.3d at 210. Martinez-Carrillo also argues that the felony and aggravated felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As Martinez-Carrillo concedes, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224No. 04-40168 -3- (1998)
. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) . The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 155.170 Additional required benefits. ( a ) *Additional required benefits.* ( 1 ) A State may require a QHP to offer benefits in addition to the essential health benefits.
( 2 ) A benefit required by State action taking place on or before December 31, 2011, a benefit required by State action for purposes of compliance with Federal requirements, or a benefit covered in the State's EHB-benchmark plan is considered an EHB. A benefit required by State action taking place on or after January 1, 2012, other than for purposes of compliance with Federal requirements, that is not a benefit covered in the State's EHB-benchmark plan is considered in addition to the essential health benefits.
( 3 ) The State will identify which State-required benefits are in addition to the EHB.
( b ) *Payments.* The State must make payments to defray the cost of additional required benefits specified in paragraph (a) of this section to one of the following: ( 1 ) To an enrollee, as defined in § 155.20 of this subchapter; or
( 2 ) Directly to the QHP issuer on behalf of the individual described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Cost of additional required benefits.* ( 1 ) Each QHP issuer in the State shall quantify cost attributable to each additional required benefit specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) A QHP issuer's calculation shall be: ( i ) Based on an analysis performed in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and methodologies;
( ii ) Conducted by a member of the American Academy of Actuaries; and
( iii ) Reported to the State.
[78 FR 12865, Feb. 25, 2013, as amended at 81 FR 12337, Mar. 8, 2016; 89 FR 26419, Apr. 15, 2024]
§ 211.6 Reception; temporary care, treatment, and assistance. ( a ) *Reception.* The agency will meet the eligible person at the port of entry or debarkation, will arrange for appropriate medical examination, and will plan with him, in cooperation with his legal guardian, or, in the absence of such a guardian, with other interested persons, if any, for needed temporary care and treatment.
( b ) *Temporary care, treatment, and assistance.* The agency will provide for temporary care, treatment, and assistance, as reasonably required for the health and welfare of the eligible person. Such care, treatment, and assistance may be provided in the form of hospitalization and other medical and remedial care (including services of necessary attendants), food and lodging, money, payments, transportation, or other goods and services. The agency will utilize the Public Health Service General Hospital nearest to the port of entry or debarkation or any other suitable public or private hospital, in providing hospitalization and medical care, including diagnostic service as needed, pending other appropriate arrangements for serving the eligible person.
Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL   Document 23   Filed 02/05/21   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL   Document 23   Filed 02/05/21   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL   Document 23   Filed 02/05/21   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-01778-RCL   Document 23   Filed 02/05/21   Page 4 of 4
###### Editorial Note on Part 300

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 300 appear at 64 FR 44431, Aug. 16, 1999, and at 76 FR 59305, Sept. 26, 2011.

#### § 300.41 Investigation notification.

Upon commencement of an investigation under section 10(b)(1) of the Act, the operator of any vessel concerned shall have 30 days after receipt of notification of the investigation and the operator's rights under section 10(b)(1) to submit comments, information, or evidence bearing on the investigation, and to request in writing that the Secretary provide the operator an opportunity to present the comments, information, or evidence orally to the Secretary or the Secretary's representative.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 14, 2018

No. 04-18-00087-CR

Marcus A. COOPER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR10168

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on March 14, 2018.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of March, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
#### Perrin *et al.*v Lewis, appellant.

*Trial—dismissal of complaint—neglect to request submission to jury.*

Defendant made a draft on plaintiffs. The draft was accompanied by a bill of lading of some cheese consigned to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs accepted and paid the draft, and sold the cheese which did not bring enough to meet the draft. In an action for the deficiency, the defense was that the cheese had been sold to plaintiffs’ agent for the amount of the draft. Plaintiffs claimed to have received and sold the cheese on commission. Evidence was given tending to prove the allegations upon each side. *Held,*that a motion to dismiss the complaint was properly denied, and that the defendant not having requested the submission of the case to the jury, could not object on appeal to a verdict for plaintiff, found by direction of the court.

*Bi&ke &-Ballou,*for appellant.

*B. L. Stevens,*for respondent.

Mdllin, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment and order denying a new trial. The head note contains all that is of any importance in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 155.710 Eligibility standards for SHOP. ( a ) *General requirement.* The SHOP must permit qualified employers to purchase coverage for qualified employees through the SHOP.
( b ) *Employer eligibility requirements.* An employer is a qualified employer eligible to purchase coverage through a SHOP if such employer— ( 1 ) Is a small employer;
( 2 ) Elects to offer, at a minimum, all full-time employees coverage in a QHP through a SHOP; and
( 3 ) Either— ( i ) Has its principal business address in the Exchange service area and offers coverage to all its full-time employees through that SHOP; or
( ii ) Offers coverage to each eligible employee through the SHOP serving that employee's primary worksite.
( c ) *Participating in multiple SHOPs.* If an employer meets the criteria in paragraph (b) of this section and makes the election described in (b)(3)(ii) of this section, a SHOP shall allow the employer to offer coverage to those employees whose primary worksite is in the SHOP's service area.
( d ) *Continuing eligibility.* The SHOP must treat a qualified employer which ceases to be a small employer solely by reason of an increase in the number of employees of such employer as a qualified employer until the qualified employer otherwise fails to meet the eligibility criteria of this section or elects to no longer purchase coverage for qualified employees through the SHOP.
( e ) *Employee eligibility requirements.* An employee is a qualified employee eligible to enroll in coverage through a SHOP if such employee receives an offer of coverage from a qualified employer. A qualified employee is eligible to enroll his or her dependents in coverage through a SHOP if the offer from the qualified employer includes an offer of dependent coverage.
[77 FR 18464, Mar. 27, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 10869, Feb. 27, 2015]
#### Donald Grant, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*Grant*v. *City of New York,*122 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Argued January 18, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 10, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover sa’ary as inspector of police "from' the date of the plaintiff’s illegal dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.

*Terence J. McManus, William M. K. Olcott*and *T. B. Chancellor*for appellant.

*567
      *Francis K. Pendleton, Corporation Counsel (Theodore Connoly*and *Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Ingraham, J., in Appellate Division on previous appeal (111 App. Div. 160).

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, IIiscock and Chase, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 950 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 950

   To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a 
 technical correction to the water rights settlement for the Shoshone-
 Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2023

  Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Risch, and Ms. Rosen) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make a 
 technical correction to the water rights settlement for the Shoshone-
 Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Technical Correction to the 
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights 
Settlement Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF ADJUSTED INTEREST ON DEVELOPMENT 
              FUND.

    Section 10807(b)(3) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 
2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1409) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``There is'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--There is''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Adjusted interest payments.--
                            ``(i) In general.--There is authorized to 
                        be appropriated to the Secretary for deposit 
                        into the Development Fund $5,124,902.12.
                            ``(ii) Cost indexing.--All amounts made 
                        available to carry out clause (i) shall, on 
                        deposit into the Development Fund, be adjusted 
                        to reflect changes since January 25, 2016, in 
                        the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
                        Consumers West Urban 50,000 to 1,500,000 
                        published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002
 
 In
connection with the Amendment No. 2 to the  Annual Report of Art
Design, Inc.(the Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended herein as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Kathy Sheehan,
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  The
information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.
 
  Date:  November
19, 2009
 
 
 By:
                  /s/Kathy
      SheehanKathy
      Sheehan
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
§ 1700.4 Chairperson. ( a ) To facilitate its work, the Commission from time to time delegates to the Chairperson various duties and responsibilities.
( b ) The Commission records formal delegation of the duties and responsibilities referred to in paragraph (a) of this section in resolutions and in the minutes of its meetings.
( c ) The Chairperson may delegate the duties and responsibilities referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, as necessary, to other Commissioners or the Executive Director of the Commission.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**  **PURSUANT
        TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS
        AMENDED**
 
 Pursuant
        to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of
        1934, as amended, (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
        18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), **** James
        Chu, Chief Executive Officer of ViewSonic Corporation (the "Company"), and
        James
        A. Morlan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies
        that,
        to the best of his knowledge:
 
 **1.** The
        Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005,
        to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”),
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act;
        and
 
 **2.** The
        information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 
 **In
        Witness Whereof** ,
        the
        undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the ____the day of November
        2005.
 
 
 /s/
                  James Chu
              
              /s/
                  James A. MorlanJames
                  Chu
              
              James
                  A. MorlanChief
                  Executive Officer
              
              Chief
                  Financial Officer
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
        18 of
        the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), has been provided to ViewSonic
        Corporation and will be retained by ViewSonic Corporation and furnished to
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 This
        certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
        by
        reference into any filing of ViewSonic Corporation under the Securities Act
        of
        1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether
        made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q, irrespective of any general
        incorporation language contained in such filing.
Editorial Note on Part 7
Editorial Note: The Alphabetical Listing is updated annually by the Office of the Federal Register.

§ 7.88 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. ( a ) *Fishing.* Unless otherwise designated, fishing in a manner authorized under applicable State law is allowed.
( b ) *Powerless flight.* The use of devices to carry persons through the air in powerless flight is allowed at times and locations designated by the superintendent pursuant to the terms and conditions of a permit.
[49 FR 18451, Apr. 30, 1984]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3315                    2625
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                          4300                    4300
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7615)                  (6925)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   690                    1411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (690)                  (1411)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (690)                  (1411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (690)                  (1411)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
§ 908.30 Request for review. ( a ) Any Person aggrieved by a determination concerning placement or retention on the List or any other right under subpart B of this rule, may request that the determination be reviewed.
( b ) The applicant's request for review, shall be in writing, shall state the reasons for requesting review, and shall describe the relief sought (including all information the aggrieved person believes to be relevant). The applicant's written request shall be sent to the Director of Real Estate, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1220 North, Washington, DC 20004.
[48 FR 55459, Dec. 13, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 45824, Nov. 4, 1985]
1 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50512 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
$10,158.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant,

CHARLES W. ROTHENBACH; ANNA MARIA ROTHENBACH;

JOSEPHINE LAWHON,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-97-CV-1488

- - - - - - - - - - January 6, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Charles W. Rot henbach, Anna Maria Rothenbach, and Josephine

Lawhon (the Rothenbachs) appeal the striking of their answers and

motions to dismiss and the resulting default judgment in favor of

the United States. The district court acted on a motion from the

United States, finding that the Rothenbachs had failed to file a

verified claim as required by 28 U.S.C., Rule C(6) of theSupplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims. The

Rothenbachs also appeal the district court’s denial of the motion

to set aside the default judgment.

We have reviewed appellants’ brief and the record, and we

determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

striking the answer and amended answer and in granting the default

judgment. S ee United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency , 950 F.2d

1108 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One 1988 Dodge Pickup
, 959

F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One 1978 Piper Navajo PA31 Aircraft
, 748 F.2d 316 (5th Cir. 1984). We also decide that the

district court’s refusal to grant the Rothenbachs an extension of

time or to set aside the default judgment was not an abuse of

discretion when the failure to file a timely and correct verified

claim resulted from counsel’s lack of understanding of the law of

forfeitures. S ee Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc. ,

6 F.3d 350, 356-357 (5th Cir. 1993)(motion to set aside dismissal).

AFFIRMED.