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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20481 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TOMASA AGUILERA-DE FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CR-151-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tomasa Aguilera-De Flores appeals her conviction for illegal reentry into the country after having been removed following an aggravated felony conviction. She argues (1) that the district court should have suppressed the evidence of her prior removal because that removal was fundamentally unfair and (2) that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s sentencing provisions are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). SheNo. 03-20481 -2- acknowledges that her arguments are foreclosed, and she seeks to preserve them for further review. Aguilera-De Flores’s argument that her inability to seek discretionary relief under INA § 212(c) in her prior removal proceedings rendered those proceedings fundamentally unfair and that evidence of her prior removal should have been suppressed is without merit. United States v. Lopez-Ortiz , 313 F.3d 225 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1135 (2003). Her argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi is also without merit. See Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998); United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000)

. AFFIRMED.
No. 56858.

#### F. A. MacCluer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 140522-K (New York)

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From the evidence presented it was held that the goods not found in the cases at the time of examination at the importer’s place of business were not landed. The collector was directed to reliquidate the entry, refunding duties taken upon the missing articles as follows: Braces, style No. 3116, 7^2 dozen; style No. 3229, 5)42 dozen; and style No. 3230, 9% dozen; and belts, style No. 0494, 27^2 dozen. *(United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.,*34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351, followed.)
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 10:30 AM

To: 'Jason@HoffmanEquity.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Jason Hoffman (FAA-2015-0533)

June 12, 2015 

Dear Mr. Hoffman: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0533). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 26, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
FILED: February 10, 2022

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1087

PIA MCADAMS,

 Appellant,

v.

DEMETRIUS ROBINSON; TAMARA ROBINSON,

 Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,

 Defendant – Appellee.

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

NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER; MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC., 

CONSUMERS LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY; CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING 

CENTER; NORTHWEST CONSUMER LAW CENTER

 Amici Supporting Appellant.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed on February 10, 2022, as follows:

Subsections A and B are added to sections I and III.

On page 3, in the last line of the first paragraph under section I.A., the word 

“complete” is changed to “process.”

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 66 Filed: 02/10/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

On page 6, in the first full paragraph, the second sentence is changed to read, “The 

judge found that the distribution of the notice was sufficient because over 97% of the nearly 

350,000 class members received notice.”

On page 15, in the second line under section IV, the words “district court” are 

changed to “magistrate judge.”

On page 17, the first sentence under section V now reads, “McAdams also argues 

that the settlement release is ‘ambiguous, overbroad, and beyond the permissible scope of 

release for class action settlements.’”

On page 18, in the fifth line up from the bottom of the page, the word “the” is 

inserted before “class action.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1087 Doc: 66 Filed: 02/10/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
October 5, 1953

No. 57521.

Suit 4744.

#### Van Gelder-Fanto Corporation *v.*United States.

C. D. 1417 affirmed June 17, 1953. C. A. D. 534.
Before the Third Division,

March 26, 1959

No. 62900.

#### Ready Foods de Mexico, S. A. *v.*United States,

protests 239881-K, etc. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *J. S. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000878659
<NAME>                          Enex Oil & Gas Income Program V-Series 3,L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         1990
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18927
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22596
<PP&E>                                         953091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 712456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263231
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          44062
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     219169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   263231
<SALES>                                        121546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121546
<CGS>                                          50983
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176661
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125678
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (55115)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GARY L. SELLERS,

Appellant,

v.

THE BEAR'S CLUB PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., JOHN 

BITOVE, WILLIAM TERLATA, SHERRIE ABBRUZZESE, GARY 

NICKLAUS, ROBERT WESSELMAN, and THE BEARS CLUB FOUNDING 

PARTNER, LLC, f/k/a THE BEAR'S CLUB FOUNDING PARTNERS, 

LTD.,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-2160 

[May 4, 2023]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502022CA000474.

Jeremy Dicker of Sachs Sax Caplan, Boca Raton, for Appellant.

Mark M. Heinish of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellees The Bear's Club Property Owners' Association Inc., John Bitove, 

William Terlato, Sherrie Abbruzzese, Gary Nicklaus and Robert 

Wesselman.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Before the Second Division,

March 31, 1959

No. 62924.

#### Brown Boveri Corp. and Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

protests 238860-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal voltage regulators and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Brown Boveri Corp. et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 168, C.D. 1978), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

March 18, 1960

No. 63977.

protests 58/12069 and 58/23222 (Philadelphia).

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

*393Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nonelectric dry shavers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63302, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 59387.

protests 190085-K, etc. (New York).

#### Regal Accessories, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of silk wearing apparel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specially House, Inc., Bryant & Heffer*
      *285
      *nan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 88

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 5, 1999

Received

JULY 14, 1999

Referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Urging the Congress and the President to increase funding

for the Pell Grant Program and existing Campus-Based

Aid Programs.

Whereas the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant Program,

now known as the Pell Grant Program in honor of Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, was first authorized

in the 1972 amendments to the Higher Education Act of

1965;

Whereas the Pell Grant Program has become the largest

need-based Federal higher education scholarship program
2

HCON 88 RFS

and is considered the foundation for all Federal student

aid;

Whereas the purpose of the program is to assist students

from low income families who would not otherwise be financially able to attend a postsecondary institution by

providing grants to students to be used to pay the costs

of attending the postsecondary institution of their choice;

Whereas in the late 1970’s, the Pell Grant covered seventyfive percent of the average cost of attending a public

four-year college; by the late 1990’s, it only covered thirty-six percent of the cost of attending a public four-year

college;

Whereas families across the country are concerned about the

rising cost of a college education, and for children from

low income families, the cost of college continues to be

an overwhelming factor in their decision to forego a college education;

Whereas children from high income families are almost twice

as likely to enroll in college as children from low income

families;

Whereas higher education promotes economic opportunity for

individuals and economic competitiveness for our Nation;

Whereas the Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Programs

target aid to low income students as effectively as any

programs administered by the Federal government; and

Whereas student borrowing to finance a postsecondary education has increased to an average indebtedness of

$9,700, and therefore increased grant aid is more important than ever: Now, therefore, be it
3

HCON 88 RFS

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress and the President, should,

3 working within the constraints of the balanced budget

4 agreement, make student scholarship aid the highest pri5 ority for higher education funding by increasing the max6 imum Pell Grant awarded to low income students by $400

7 and increasing other existing campus-based aid programs

8 that serve low-income students prior to authorizing or ap9 propriating funds for any new education initiative.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
No. 99-10654

-1-

 

* 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. 99-10654

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS HOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMIE SHAW; LEKELIA LAWAN SHAW-RUSSELL; WILLIAM KENT PASCHAL;

W. BROOKS BARFIELD, JR.; MELINDA MAYO; JUDGE SAMUEL KISER, 181st

District Court; WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; S.O. Woods, Jr.,

Chairman Board of Record Classification; BRENDA GOUGE, 181st

District Court Reporter; CANDACE NORRIS; POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS;

REBECCA KING, District Attorney Potter County; BRUCE SADLER,

Assistant Prosecutor Potter County; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:98-CV-218

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Hood, Texas prisoner No. 369033, appeals the district

court’s determination that his civil rights complaint seeking

damages for an allegedly wrongful prosecution and conviction for 

aggravated sexual assault was frivolous and that it failed to

state a claim for relief.
No. 99-10654

-2-

 

** 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Hood’s claims against defendants Shaw and Shaw-Russell are

barred by Heck v. Humphrey** because he remains incarcerated due

to the revocation of his parole based on their allegedly false

accusations. McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d

158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). Defendants Paschal, Barfield, and

Norris are not state actors subject to liability under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). 

Defendants Mayo and King are entitled to absolute prosecutorial

immunity and defendant Kiser is entitled to absolute judicial

immunity. Graves v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1993);

Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1995). Hood’s

conclusional allegations with respect to defendants Sadler and

Potter County fail to state a civil rights claim. Babb v.

Dorman, 33 F.3d 472, 476 (5th Cir. 1994). Hood has abandoned his

claims against the other defendants by failing to brief those

issues. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Thus, we find that Hood’s appeal is legally frivolous and it IS

DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Hood’s complaint and this

court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as two

“strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Hood is CAUTIONED

that if he accumulates three “strikes” under § 1915(g), he will

not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal 

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless 
No. 99-10654

-3-

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Borrowing
Contract




Lender (Full Name):Kunming
Municipal Bureau of Finance, Branch Bureau of Kunming National Economy and
Technology Developing District





Borrower (Full Name): Kunming
Shenghuo Pharmaceutics (Group) Co., Ltd.





Pursuant
to the Contract Law of People’s Republic of China, the two parties, following
consultations, mutually agree to enter into this Contract (“Contract”) as
follows for purpose of providing support for the development of Kunming Shenghuo
Pharmaceutical (group) Co., Ltd and to repay the loans on due.





1. The
lender provides the borrower with a loan in amount of RMB35 million dated from
March 30, 2010, which will be used by the borrower to repay the loans on
due.





2. The
term of the loan is from March 30, 2010 to April 13, 2010.





3. The
loan interest rate executes the annual interest rate of 4.86%, the borrower
shall pay the interests on a quarterly basis. If the borrower fails to repay the
loan on time, the lender is entitled to levy a penalty interest, and the daily
penalty for the overdue loan is equal to 0.04%.





4. This
loan is secured by the pharmaceutical workshops and attached buildings in an
area of 5,303m2 held by the
borrower, which is located in Kunming National Economy and Technology Developing
District. In case that the borrower fails to repay the loan and its interests in
full amount, the lender is entitled to dispose the mortgaged workshops and
attached buildings.





5. In
case that the borrower fails to use the loan under the Contract, or that it
violates the laws or relevant regulations, the lender is entitled to withdraw
the loan before its term expires and terminate the Contract.





6. The
lender is entitled to review and supervise the use of loan, have a knowledge
about how the loan is used and its financial conditions. The borrower shall make
a introduction concerning the loan use faithfully and provide relevant
information.





7. This
Contract shall be executed in three original copies, two copies for the lender
and one copy for the borrower.





8. This
Contract shall come into force and legal effect as of the date of execution and
sealing by both parties. Anything not covered in this Contract will be resolved
according to The Contract Law of People’s Republic of China and relevant laws
and regulations. This Contract will be terminated automatically after the loan
and its interest is paid off.










Borrower:
Kunming Shenghuo Pharmaceutical (group) Co., Ltd.


Legal
Representative (seal): Guihua Lan


Signature
of Officer: Yuqing Lan





Lender:
Kunming Municipal Bureau of
Finance, Branch Bureau of Kunming National Economy and Technology Developing
District


Lerder’s
seal:


Signature
of the Person-in-charge: Jiarong Yang


Signiature
of Officer: Binghui Li





Date of
Execution: March 29, 2010


Place of
Execution: Kunming Municipal Bureau of Finance, Branch Bureau of Kunming
National Economy and Technology Developing District
No. 57541.

#### Pistorino & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 203996-K and 203997-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers failing to disclose any reason for disturbing the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protests were overruled.
# CE2004065EN.01016901.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/169

---

(2004/C 65 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2528/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Council

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Body piercing

Subject:

Does the Council consider it necessary to make proposals for minimum common standards for licensing and operation for the commercial provision of the services of tattooing or body piercing in the EU in order to protect the health of the general public and to avoid needless tragedies like the recent death of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield in the UK? If not, why not?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to submit proposals to the Council within the scope of the powers laid down by the Treaty.

No proposal in this area has been submitted to the Council so far.

---
Exhibit 32.1








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





I, Shaun Passley, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Epazz, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Epazz, Inc.





By:/s/ Shaun Passley


Shaun Passley


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Before the Third Division,

September 17, 1953

No. 57477.

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc., and D & A Sclafani *v.*United States,

protests 160399-K and 165182-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fontana Hollywood Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 98, C. D. 1503), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 63478.

protest 59/847 (New York).

#### Amco Shippers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 2 Received in Senate (RDS)]







106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 2


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 1999

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION


 
                Providing for adjournment of the House.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
January 6, 1999, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, January 
19, 1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 6, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.`