alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50203

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ-HOLGUIN, also known

as Rafael Olguin Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CR-431-ALL

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Rafael Rodriguez-Holguin 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. 

Rodriguez 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
No. 03-50203

-2-

alleged in his indictment. Rodriguez maintains that he pleaded

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release 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. 

Rodriguez 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.
From: ihcguy@altelco.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Tim Metternick

Alto, MI 49302
```

[114th Congress Public Law 164]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 413]]

Public Law 114-164
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
clinic in Sevierville, Tennessee, the Dannie A. Carr Veterans Outpatient 
             Clinic. <<NOTE: June 3, 2016 -  [H.R. 2814]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress makes the following findings:
            (1) The State of Tennessee, the Volunteer State, holds a 
        proud tradition of selfless volunteerism to the United States 
        Armed Forces.
            (2) Specialist Four Dannie A. Carr, of Sevier County, 
        Tennessee, served with distinction in B Company, 2nd Battalion, 
        7th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division during the Vietnam 
        War in defense of the United States.
            (3) Specialist Four Dannie A. Carr, twice wounded in battle 
        and later killed in action by artillery fire on July 3, 1969, 
        has been duly recognized by the Army, having been awarded the 
        Bronze Star for Valor and the Purple Heart.
            (4) The heroism of Dannie A. Carr is well known and held in 
        high regard within the community of Sevier County, Tennessee.
            (5) The municipalities of Pittman Center, Sevierville, 
        Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and Sevier County have agreed to and 
        passed resolutions supporting the renaming of the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Sevier 
        County, Tennessee, in honor of Specialist Four Dannie Arthur 
        Carr.
SEC. 2. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED 
                    OUTPATIENT CLINIC, SEVIERVILLE, TENNESSEE.

     The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
clinic located at 1124 Blanton Drive, Sevierville, Tennessee, shall 
after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as 
the ``Dannie A. Carr Veterans Outpatient Clinic''. Any reference to such 
community-based outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, 
record, or other paper of the United

[[Page 130 STAT. 414]]

States shall be considered to be a reference to the Dannie A. Carr 
Veterans Outpatient Clinic.

    Approved June 3, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2814:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Mar. 1, considered and passed House.
            May 18, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
No. 65185.

#### Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 256972-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pile ribbons made of synthetic textile similar in use to pile ribbons, wholly or in chief value of silk, and following the principles set forth in *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: Andreyk7@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:44:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Andrey Kalashnik

Conklin, NY 13748
**Exhibit 31.3**

 

**Certification**

 

I, John A. Galea, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 of Interval Leisure Group, Inc.;

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Dated:   March 20, 2015 | /s/ JOHN A. GALEA                         |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                         | John A. Galea

*Chief Accounting Officer* |

 

1

----
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

In connection with the Annual Report of H&H Imports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

Date:  August ___, 2011

| |        |                        
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | By:    | /s/ Steve Roga         
| | Name:  | Steve Rogai            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to H&H Imports, Inc. and will be retained by H&H Imports, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: petermanrf@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:49:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rosemary Peterman

Clinton, MO 64735
No. 65156.

#### Scandia Finer Foods Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/18237 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Wilson, .1.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish cakes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Richter Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(44 C.C.P.A. 128, C.A.D. 649), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P66/248. —

#### Alroy Packing and W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 63/7459, etc. (San Francisco).

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of peeled pumpkin seeds or peeled pumpkin seed kernels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alroy Packing Co. and W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 Cust. Ct. 372, Abstract 68623), and *George Beurhaus Co.*and *Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 269, C.D. 1612), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: loismichell@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:37:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lois Michell

Fredericksburg, VA 22406
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000874507
<NAME>                        easj$7sr
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                                              <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                   360
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         15,166
<ALLOWANCES>                                           3,028
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      16,347
<PP&E>                                                11,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                         8,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        22,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 29,823
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     91
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                 328
<OTHER-SE>                                           (8,015)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          22,450
<SALES>                                               42,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      42,300
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         30,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      20,998
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (9,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (9,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        14,452
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (24,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (2.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
                                               


</TABLE>
From: pattrvlagt@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:30:50 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Pat Fulton

Mesa, AZ 85205