alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose NARVAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41728.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Narvaez appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported after conviction for an aggravated felony. Narvaez asserts for the first time on appeal that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), controls this issue. We must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, this issue is foreclosed.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 

H. STANLEY GASS,

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALBERT F. SCHLOTFELDT, et al,

 

 Defendants.

Case No. C05-5602JKA

 

 Minute Order

Re: Motion for Pretrial Conference

THIS matter has pending a motion for pretrial conference (Docket #13) filed December 9, 2005. On

November 18, 2005 the clerk of court forwarded to the parties notice of their right to consent to the matter

being referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.636 ©) for all purposes. The parties

are under no obligation to consent to the assignment of the case to a United States Magistrate Judge, but have

been given until January 17, 2006 to make the election. If consents are filed Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold

will rule on the pending motion (Docket #13). If all parties elect not to consent to the assignment of the matter

to a Magistrate Judge the case will be reassigned to a District Judge who will rule on the motion.

The motion (Docket #13) is re noted for January 20, 2006.

Entered by Deputy Clerk, /s/Kelly Miller, this 15th day of December 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-05602-RBL Document 14 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 1
From: moormanr43@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:53:19 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,

Russell Moorman

Baker, FL 32531
From: melsnel@windstream.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:51:08 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,

Melinda Snelgrove

Lexington, SC 29073
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 588 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 588

Recognizing Martha Coffin Wright on the 200th anniversary of her birth 
       and her induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2007

 Mr. Arcuri, submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing Martha Coffin Wright on the 200th anniversary of her birth 
       and her induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame.

Whereas, Martha Coffin Wright, sister of Lucretia Coffin Mott, was one of five 
        organizers of the First Woman's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New 
        York, in 1848;
Whereas from this convention came the ``Declaration of Sentiments'', an appeal 
        for basic rights for women, modeled on the Declaration of Independence;
Whereas when Martha Wright helped to plan the Seneca Falls Convention, she was 
        six months pregnant with her seventh child, epitomizing the personal 
        strength and dedication of the participants of the women's rights 
        movement;
Whereas the sites associated with the First Woman's Rights Convention are 
        preserved in the Women's Rights National Historic Park in Seneca Falls, 
        New York;
Whereas after the Seneca Falls Convention, Martha Wright participated in many 
        State and national women's rights conventions in various capacities, 
        often serving as president;
Whereas during the antebellum years, Martha Wright was active in the abolition 
        movement, attended the founding meeting of the American Anti-Slavery 
        Society in Philadelphia in 1833, and later presided over numerous anti-
        slavery meetings;
Whereas Martha Wright's home in Auburn, New York, was part of the Underground 
        Railroad; and
Whereas slavery was abolished in 1865 with the ratification of the Thirteenth 
        Amendment, and women's suffrage was achieved in 1920 with the 
        ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 200th birthday of Martha Coffin Wright;
            (2) recognizes the induction of Martha Coffin Wright into 
        the National Women's Hall of Fame; and
            (3) honors the accomplishments of Martha Coffin Wright in 
        her fight for equal rights for all Americans.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ernesto M. SISON, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 01-3094.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 8, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto M. Sisón seeks review of the May 23, 2000, decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board, Docket No. SE0831000115-I-1, affirming the Office of *972Personnel Management’s denial of his request for an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System. Because Sison’s service was not in covered positions, we *affirm.*

We review the board’s decisions under a narrow standard. *See Hamel v. President’s Comm’n on Executive Exch,*987 F.2d 1561, 1564 (Fed.Cir.1993). We must affirm absent a showing that a decision of the board is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994).

One who claims entitlement to an annuity based on a separation occurring after August 31, 1954, must meet the requirements of the current version of the Civil Service Retirement Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 8331*et seq.*This Act requires that an employee complete at least five years of creditable civilian service, with at least one of the last two years of service qualifying as covered service. 5 U.S.C. § 8333(a)-(b) (1994). Covered service only includes an appointment that is subject to the CSRA and for which an employee must deposit part of his pay into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. *Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*48 F.3d 514, 516 (Fed.Cir.1995). In addition, “[ejmployees serving under non-permanent appointments, designated as indefinite ...” are excluded from civil service retirement system coverage. 5 C.F.R. § 831.201(a)(13).

Substantial evidence, including Sison’s SF-50’s, indicates that Sisón served his entire career in excepted service indefinite appointments and is therefore ineligible for civil service retirement benefits. Moreover, his employment from July 7, 1954, to August 29, 1966, was for a non-appropriated funds agency (NAFI), and NAFI service is not creditable service except under limited circumstances for which Sisón does not qualify. *See Dupo v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*69 F.3d 1125, 1128 (Fed.Cir.1995) (NAFI service is creditable if (1) it was performed between June 18, 1952, and January 1, 1966; (2) it “involved conducting an arts and crafts, drama, music, library, service club, youth activities, sports, or recreation program ... for personnel of the armed forces ... ”; and (3) the individual was an employee subject to the civil service retirement system on November 9, 1986). Finally, although Sisón argues that he had a long career of faithful government service and requests relief on equitable grounds, the eligibility requirements for retirement are substantive legal obligations which we have no authority to waive. *See Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond,*496 U.S. 414, 416, 110 S.Ct. 2465, 110 L.Ed.2d 387 (1990).
EXHIBIT 21.1





|Name of consolidated
    
subsidiary or entity |  | State or other
    jurisdiction of incorporation or organization |  | Date of incorporation or
    
formation (date of acquisition, 
if applicable) |  | Attributable
    
interest |    
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | ---
|                                               |  |                                                                  |  |                                                                               |  |                            |    
|Cemtrex Ltd                                    |  | Hong Kong                                                        |  | September 4, 2013                                                             |  |                            | 100
|Advanced Industrial Services, Inc.             |  | Pennsylvania                                                     |  | July 20, 1984 (December 15, 2015)                                             |  |                            | 100
|Cemtrex Advanced Technologies, Inc.            |  | New York                                                         |  | July 11, 2017                                                                 |  |                            | 100
|Cemtrex Technologies Pvt Ltd.                  |  | India                                                            |  | December 21, 2017                                                             |  |                            | 100
|Vicon Industries, Inc.                         |  | New York                                                         |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72 
|Vicon Industries Limited                       |  | United Kingdom                                                   |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72 
|IQinVision, Inc.                               |  | California                                                       |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72 
|Vicon Deutschland GmbH)                        |  | Germany                                                          |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72 
|TeleSite U.S.A., Inc.                          |  | New Jersey                                                       |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72 
|Vicon Systems Ltd.                             |  | Israel                                                           |  | March 23, 2018                                                                |  |                            | 72
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Osteotech,  Inc. and Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30,
1997 and the Condensed  Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months
ended  September  30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             13,851,000
<SECURITIES>                                          973,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                       7,208,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          148,000
<INVENTORY>                                           730,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   25,254,000
<PP&E>                                             17,937,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      8,954,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     37,500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               8,522,000
<BONDS>                                               356,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               83,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         28,277,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       37,500,000
<SALES>                                             1,547,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   32,720,000
<CGS>                                               1,108,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      26,658,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    109,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     6,470,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        2,627,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 3,843,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        3,843,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             .41
        


</TABLE>
| 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 Mediware. |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:  February 1, 2011 | /s/ T. Kelly Mann                      |   |
|------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     | T. Kelly MannChief Executive Officer   |   |
|                                     |                                   |   |
| Dated:  February 1, 2011       | /s/ Michael Martens                    |   |
|                                     | Michael MartensChief Financial Officer |   |
Relief from 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), and (a)(2), And 91.417(a) and (b) is 

requested to the extent that allows the Operator to operate the Phantom 3 

Professional Quad-Copter as necessary. 

These sections are all related to airworthiness certificates of aircraft. There 

is not currently an airworthiness certificate for small UAS's. 

The Operator would comply in full to any conditions and limitations the 

Administrator would place in order to receive an approved Grant of 

Exemption. 

Public Interest: - 

Aerial photography has been around for many years. As a current licensed 

Real Estate Agent in the State of Texas, agents are looking for a way to 

have pictures/videos taken in a more cost effective manner. This exemption 

would allow me to offer my services to real estate agencies at a fraction of 

the costs as compared to use of a helicopter or small manned aircraft. 

There is essentially no carbon foot print left from these UAS'. Aerial 

photography from a UAS, leaves no emissions, and minimal ecological 

damage. These items listed, will help my community, not only with finding 

local businesses a new location, but also with finding the people in my 

community a beautiful place to call home. 

Conclusion: 

As set forth herein, the Operator seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 11.61 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(FMRA), which will permit safe operation of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

UAS commercially within the Real Estate markets. The Administrator will 

be assisting small business and local residents, by granting this petition. In 

accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, The 

Operator respectfully requests that the FAA Administrator grants this 

petition for exemption from TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL 

REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113 (a) and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.119 (c); 

91.121; 91.151 (a); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a) (1) and (2); 

91.417 (a) and (b) 

Res` ectfully Submitted, 

Brian J. McCall
From: chris.bellows@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:17:22 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,

Chris Bellows

Waterford, MI 48329