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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20859

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELEUTERIO BANUELOS-CAMPOS,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CR-105-1

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

November 28, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Eleuterio Banuelos-Campos appeals his conviction for illegally reentering the United States

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Banuelos-Campos contends that the district court erred in denying a motion to dismiss, in

which he had argued that a previous deportation could not form the basisfor a prosecution for illegal

reentry because the proceeding did not comply with due process. As Banuelos-Campos concedes,

thisissue isforeclosed by our decision in United States v. Benitez-Villafuerte, 186 F.3d 651, 654 (5th

Cir. 1999), cert. den ied, 120 S. Ct. 838 (2000).
 

 

Banuelos-Campos argues that the criminal information in his case was defective because it

did not allege illegal reentry as a specific-intent crime. As he again concedes, we have previously

rejected this argument. See United States v. Ortegon-Uvalde, 179 F.3d 956, 959 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 120 S. Ct. 433 (1999). Banuelos-Campos argues that since the Seventh Circuit has held that

§ 1326 requires proof of “some mentalstate,” see United States v. Anton, 683 F.2d 1011, 1017 (7th

Cir. 1982), we should apply the rule of lenity and resolve any ambiguity in his favor. A statute is not

ambiguous for purposes of the rule of lenity merely because there is a division of judicial authority

over its proper interpretation. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 64-65 (1995).

Banuelos-Campos argues that his criminal information was defective because it charged him

with a prohibited status offense. This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States

v. Tovias-Marroquin, 218 F.3d 455, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Edward Harrell, * From the 104th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 23429-B.

Vs. No. 11-22-00261-CR * January 4, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
No. 56225.

protests 174258-K and 173035-K (New York).

#### The Otto Gerdau Co. and Quong Mee Yuen & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
# Rumor: My homeowner’s insurance includes flood insurance.

## Fact

This is not true. Homeowner insurance policies do not normally cover flood damage. Flood insurance is typically a separate policy.

Visit the National Flood Insurance Program page to purchase flood insurance or find out more.

## Related Links

                                - Return to the Common Disaster-Related Rumors page

Last updated August 18, 2023

Return to top
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23749]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #18094 and #18095; HAWAII Disaster Number HI-
00074]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Hawaii 
(FEMA-4724-DR), dated 08/21/2023.
    Incident: Wildfires, including High Winds.
    Incident Period: 08/08/2023 through 09/30/2023.

DATES: Issued on 10/13/2023.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/20/2023.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/21/2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Hawaii, dated 08/21/2023, is hereby amended to establish the incident 
period for this disaster as beginning 08/08/2023 and continuing through 
09/30/2023.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco S[aacute]nchez, Jr.,
Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2023-23749 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
No. 59849.

#### Swift & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 172749-K, etc. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 211

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 17, 1999

Received

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the strong support of the Congress for the recently concluded elections in the Republic of India and

urging the President to travel to India.

Whereas the Republic of India is a longstanding parliamentary democracy where citizens may freely change their

government;

Whereas India has a thriving multiparty system where a

broad spectrum of political views are represented;

Whereas India recently conducted a successful round of elections, involving over 650,000,000 registered voters and
2

HCON 211 RFS

resulting in a 60 percent voter turnout and re-election of

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee;

Whereas India and the United States share a special relationship as the world’s most populous democracy and the

world’s oldest democracy, respectively, and have a shared

commitment to upholding the will of the people and the

rule of law;

Whereas the President has expressed his continued desire to

travel to South Asia; and

Whereas India continues to be a shining example of democracy for all of Asia to follow: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the people of the Republic of

4 India on the successful conclusion of their recent na5 tional elections;

6 (2) congratulates Prime Minister Atal Bihari

7 Vajpayee on his re-election;

8 (3) calls on the President to travel to India as

9 part of any trip to South Asia; and

10 (4) urges the President to broaden our special

11 relationship with India into a strategic partnership.

Passed the House of Representatives November 16,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE :

: Case No: 70018690DI

v. : In and for Kent County

:

RICHARD O. PARKER, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

Defendant Parker has moved for post-conviction relief, alleging irregularities

in representation, prosecution, conviction and sentencing regarding his “January 15,

1974 conviction for Rape 1

st Degree - Life Sentence” imposed by Judge George

Wright. Among his contentions is the assertion that his plea was induced by counsel’s

inadequate investigation into a hair sample possessed by the prosecution.

To begin with, the Court records indicate that Defendant’s rape conviction was

in 1962, and that it was commuted to a 30 year term in 1971. Defendant was then

granted parole in 1973.

In barely 3 months, Defendant had committed a robbery, and related charges,

plus a violation of his parole. He was then sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Given

the law at that time, when all level 5 sentences were necessarily consecutive,

Defendant had the potential of approximately 19 years at level 5 on the original postcommutation sentence of 30 years. He was sentenced to 30 “new” years for those new

convictions. All of that took place in 1974, the conviction year (though not the

charge) about which Defendant now complains.

Since the full 19 years of the original rape conviction have long since passed,

Defendant’s “Rape 1

st

” issue is Moot.

If this is viewed as a complaint about the “1974" conviction, which was in fact
State v. Parker

Case No.: 70018690DI

July 15, 2016

for robbery and related charges, that, too, would be moot, because Defendant was

convicted in 1977 of Sodomy, occurring while Defendant was an inmate. For that, he

was sentenced to Life.

Hence, until Defendant has served his entire life, or had that sentence

commuted significantly, any issue with the 1974 robbery conviction – which, again,

does not appear to be the case with which Defendant has cavil – is of no consequence.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as Moot.

SO ORDERED this 15

th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Robert B. Young

Judge

RBY/lmc

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Department of Justice

Richard Parker, JTVCC

2
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
   
     We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of
Amendment No. 5 to this Registration Statement on Form S-1 of SpinCycle, Inc. of
our report dated March 13, 1998 relating to the financial statements of
SpinCycle, Inc., which appears in such Prospectus. We also consent to the
reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.
    
 
Price Waterhouse LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
   
November 23, 1998
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32.1

                        AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.
    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 Quarterly Report of American Technologies Group, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr.
Gary Fromm, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to American Technologies Group, Inc. and will be retained by American
Technologies Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

June 20, 2005





/S/ DR. GARY FROMM
------------------
DR. GARY FROMM
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit: 3.9J

             AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV OF THE BYLAWS
                              OF
            WITH DESIGN IN MIND INTERNATIONAL, INC.

         Section 5. Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Chairman shall be
the chief executive officer of the corporation and, subject to the control of
the Board of Directors, shall be in general charge of the business affairs of
the corporation. The chairman shall be responsible for developing basic goals,
operating plans, and policies for the corporation and implementing
board-approved plans. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the
shareholders and of the Board of Directors. The Chairman shall perform such
other duties as may be reasonably prescribed by the Board of Directors from time
to time.

         Section 6. President. The President shall be the chief operating
officer of the corporation and, shall be primarily responsible for management of
the operations of the corporation. The President shall work together with the
Chairman of the Board to develop goals, operating plans, and policies for the
corporation, and implement board-approved plans. The President shall perform
such other duties as may be reasonably prescribed by the Board of Directors from
time to time.

Adopted: September 3, 1991
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated February 10, 1997 relating to the
combined financial statements of Pru-HEI Hotel Group, which appears in the
Current Report on Form 8-K/A of Starwood Lodging Trust and Starwood Lodging
Corporation dated February 10, 1997. We also consent to the reference to us
under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.
 
Price Waterhouse LLP
New York, New York
January 14, 1998
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 8 1 3 c / w N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 8 3 0 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
.
F R A N K G A R C I A ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U D C N o
. 7 : 0 8

- C R

- 2 9 8

- 2

B e f o r e R E A V L E Y , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t F r a n k G a r c i a h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f

i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. G a r c i a h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e

r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 1, 2 010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40813 Document: 00511280541 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2010
Exhibit
      23.1


**H****ANSEN****,
                B****ARNETT****&
                M****AXWELL,
                P.C.**
              A
                Professional Corporation
              CERTIFIED
                PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
            **Registered
                with the Public Company**
              **Accounting
                Oversight Board**5
                Triad Center, Suite 750
              Salt
                Lake City, UT 84180-1128
              Phone:
                (801) 532-2200
              Fax:
                (801) 532-7944
              www.hbmcpas.com







**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**











To
      the
      Board of Directors


China
      Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings Inc.





As
      an
      independent registered public accounting firm, we hereby consent to the use
      of
      our report dated March 28, 2008 except
      for Note 1 regarding the restatement of financial statements, Note 2 regarding
      business condition and Note 13, as to which the date is November 13,
      2008 with respect to the December 31, 2007 and 2006 consolidated
      financial statements of China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. in the
      Registration Statement on Form S-3 no. 333-144959. We also consent to the use of our name and the reference to us in the Experts section
      of
      the Registration Statement.











**HANSEN,
      BARNETT & MAXWELL, P.C.**





Salt
      Lake
      City, Utah


November
      13, 2008
No. 51538.

#### Protest 103206-K of A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The only witness who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff was the United States examiner who passed the importation. After *151identifying a sample of the merchandise, he testified as to its width, thickness, and length, but conceded that his knowledge concerning the use made of the articles was based on hearsay. In response to the question whéther the sample was elastic, he said it was not; that if bent it would retain that shape and not recover its previous form. Inasmuch as plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof, the protest was overruled. *(Seagram*v. *United States,*30 C. C. P. A. 150, C. A. D. 227) followed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Leonhard Dreimann, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Salton, Inc.

                                            By: /s/ Leonhard Dreimann
                                                --------------------------
                                                Leonhard Dreimann
                                                Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Salton, Inc. and will be retained by Salton, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Triple Crown Media, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his individual knowledge and belief:



|(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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|        |  |                                                                     |  |  |  |  |  | 
|------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | 
|DATE:   |  | September 28, 2007                                                  |  |  |  | 
|        |  |                                                                     |  | 
|Signed: |  | /s/ Mark G. Meikle                                                  |  |  |  |  |  | 
|        |  | Mark G. Meikle Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer |  |  |  |  |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DISMISSING § 1983 ACTION

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BILLY NEWBERRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAPT. F. FINSEN, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-1018-MJP-MAT

ORDER DISMISSING § 1983

ACTION

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice

Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, any objections thereto, Mr. Newberry’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and the balance of the record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

(2) The complaint and this action are DISMISSED without prejudice.

(3) Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #1) is

DENIED as moot.

(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01018-MJP Document 8 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 1