alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00424

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 7382

- 211

Before Birdwell , J. ; Sudderth, C

. J .; and Bassel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### S ONIA 

### C HOWDHURY



### , ATM C HOWDHURY



### , A SMA 

### O ZZELL 

### I NDIVIDUALLY



### ,

F AHIM 

### C HOWDHURY



### , I NDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF MINORS



### F.C., AND 

### M.C.

, Appellants

V



### .

N ATHANIEL 

### O WEN 

### S ELMAN 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have con si dered “ Appellant s ’ Motion t o Dismiss .” We grant the motion

and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant s must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered : September 15 , 2022
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5025]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending March 9, 
2007

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, 
as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27527.
    Date Filed: March 6, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

PTC COMP Mail Vote 528, Resolution 011a Mileage Manual Non-TC Member/
Non-Iata Carrier Sectors (Memo 1375).
Intended effective date: 15 March 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27535.
    Date Filed: March 7, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Mail Vote 527--Resolution 010k, TC3 Japan, Korea-South East Asia, 
Special Passenger Amending Resolution between Korea (Rep. of) and China 
excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR, Mongolia, Philippines (Memo 
1064).
Intended effective date: 15 March 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27564.
    Date Filed: March 9, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

TC2 Europe-Africa, Expedited Resolution 002dg (Memo 0245).
Intended effective date: 1 April 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-27568.
    Date Filed: March 9, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

PTC COMP Mail Vote 529, Cancellation of Composite Resolutions 001m, 
001o, 001w, 002dd, 005aa, 035, 048, 125, 210, 211, 785a (Memo 1377).
Intended effective date: 1 April 2007.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E7-5025 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES WILLIAM LANG, a/k/a James W. Lang

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (6:05-cr-00031-nkm-1; 6:10-cv-80291-nkm-mfu)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James William Lang, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James William Lang seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lang

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
aZUSGS

science for a changing world

U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey

CENTAINTIES AND UMITAT?

S FOR USE OF FLOOD-INUNDATION MAPS

Akh ough the flood-inundation maps reprecant the boundaries afinundated arens with w di

eling, steuning uncbstruct
al treamfiowe along the rode
ackwater fram locelined debris or ica jams. Th

# thes series of foad-ren:
Theee forecast mo

DISCLAIMER

inundated areas shawn should not ba used for nen
purposes. The USGS oi is theea maps “as-is” fora
but eesemes no haga! listifty or respanaitility

Horuortal coordinate itieerance is retereecnd to the Nerh Aresycae [laten of 1859

Cithaphetagr apy or Eas hctS Weel bea,
3, oxafabie 1 htspate arogenten caw iruss World (ragery

Suggwetad citetion

Lonterd, Pl. 2093, Rload-inendation maps for tha Enct Fork White Rivar
ot Colurbua, iedasa: US. Gealgcal Suney Scentitic Imeastigatana
Mop 2055, 15 shoets, 8:p. paristiet

Avoileble at: hitezipube.wegs gow'siny/ 325.

Prepared in cooperation with the
Indiana Department of Transportation

ye

oe
Te
Garden ity,

ie

ied wi yt maps, The fi on

1c shown were eatimated baw

88°55"

i

A
~~ = 2
Columbus

Eveeh

water et

ted at the USGS ctreangagets!. The bydrastic model reflects the land-caver characteristics aed any bridge, dam, levee, a1

vations in the water-surtace elevations and ieundatios

ayed on these maps will vary with the accuracy afthe digtal elevation model ured to sirm

vice (NWS) river for
tation end enowrrett, (2) sirulete the

ats, the user chould be aware of addtional encertainties that mi
ene of floodwater as it pt

os

davies chown, Additional areas may be flsoded

ie the land surface. Additional uncertainties and fri

inheremt or tectored into NYS forecest procedures. The NWS usse

eds downetraam, and (31 predict the flaw anv

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 [NAVD 88)

Flood-Inundation Map for East Fork White River at Columbus, Indiana,
Corresponding to a Stage of 15.00 Feet and an Elevation of 617.7 Feet (NAVD 88)

By

Pamela J. Lombard

Ins pertinern to thie stedy are deecribed in the document 3

it madels to eetireste the quantity 9
(AMPS foreceet point! throwgho

at U.S. Geological Survey Streamgage Number 03364000 on the East Fork White River

ompanying this eet of

1g of water owing through sel
oreceat period (every 6

Scientific Investigations Map 3255
Sheet 11 of 15

Pamphlet accompanies map

4

Pa bine Hd

wee were eetimated by
‘8 (tiving and disw bution af precipitation! may
ins nang 3 main sere river,
endation map chests,

ied strewn inthe United States.
nd Ito 6 days out in marry iL For more

Director, Indiens Water
U.S fisalagcal Survey
S66) Lakerite Bird.
iedimagolis, IN COzr8
Qn} 2

or Indiana Water Scinnce Corter Wb site at
watecorps gow’

vt avaiable at: Antzolieube.uage gontsiny TOSS

Any see of trada, product, oF frre names is for descriptive pes
only and doas not ingly andorsémare by tha U.S. Gevarnm:
This and athar USGS infermation products ara available at
Atgrul'storeweps gow!

To learn about the USGS and ts information products wist
Apaiwwnusgs. paw
1.98 ASK-USES
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50015 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES GUZMAN-PERALTA, also known as Marcos Quintana-Beltran, also known as Javier Guzman-Perez, also known as Jose Hector Esparza, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-03-CR-239-ALL-SS

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andres Guzman-Peralta 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. Guzman-Peralta 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 United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 04-50015 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Guzman-Peralta 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 two-year maximum term of imprisonment 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. Guzman-Peralta 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.
#### R. T. French Co. *v.*United States

No. 7290.

Invoices dated Hull, England, August 1943, etc.

Certified September 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 9, 1943, etc.

Entry No. 710720, etc.

(Decided June 17, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
#### *Coe*Garratt and others v. Elisha C. Litchfield and others.

An appeal in chancery will not he dismissed for the failure of the Register to cause a copy of the record to be transmitted to this Court within the time provided by the statute, if'such copy is aotually filed’before the motion to dismiss is made.

IT or will it he dismissed for the failure on the part of the appellant to serve notioe thereof on oo-defendants, as required by Supreme Court Rule 14, when such failure is sufficiently excused.

*Decided July*21st.

Appeal by two of Litchfield’s co - defendants from the Saginaw Circuit in Chancery.

*J G- Sutherland,*for complainants,

moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the transcript of the record below was not made and transmitted to this Court within thirty-days after the appeal was perfected, as required by the *statute.*— (Comp. *L.*§3599. The transcript was now on file.

*Goulds & Uanchett,*contra.

*452
      *T. M.*Cooley, for defendant Litchfield,

at the same time moved to dismiss for the failure of the appellants to serve notice of the appeal upon him, as required by Supreme Court Rule 14.

*Mr.*Hanchett, contra,

read an affidavit showing that the failure to give such notice was accidental — the notice having been actually prepared, and the solicitors supposing it had been served until notice of this motion was given.

By the Court:

We have never dismissed an appeal in chancery for the failure to cause the return to be filed within the time specified, when the return was actually made and filed before the motion to dismiss was called up.

*Motion*denied.

The Court held, the failure to be sufficiently excused, and denied the motion.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADDED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr., Treasurer****and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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.               To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 
| Date:  March 12, 2008 | By:    | /s/ SALVATORE R. DEFRANCESCO, JR.     |
|--------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                 |   | Salvatore R. DeFrancesco, Jr.    |
|                                 |   | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                      |        |                                       |  |

 

87

----
EXHIBIT 32 - CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION


Exhibit 32.1

                     Statement Furnished Pursuant to
              Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of OBN Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").  This Certificate
is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the "10-QSB Report").

The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-QSB Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods
presented therein.


Date: January 11, 2007                    /s/ ROGER N. SMITH
                                       --------------------------------
                                           Roger N. Smith
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: January 11, 2007                   /s/ LARRY TAYLOR
                                      ---------------------------------
                                           Larry Taylor
                                           Chief Financial Officer
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 Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), I, Madam Sun Keqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  Date: April 15, 2010 /s/ Madam Sun Keqing     Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry R. Schraenkler, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 559]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The motion to suppress defendant’s statement to the police was properly denied. The record supports County Court’s determinations that defendant was not in custody prior to receiving *Miranda*warnings *(see, People v Flecha,*195 AD2d 1052; *People v Forbes,*182 AD2d 829, *Iv denied*80 NY2d 895) and that the ruse employed by the police during the questioning of defendant did not render his statement involuntary *(see, People v Robinson,*201 AD2d 931, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 875). (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J.—Kidnapping, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
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  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 11 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,
Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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  result  of
               operations of the Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
November 19, 2004
#### In the Matter of Proving the last Will, etc., of Anna Martin, *Deceased.*

Decree of surrogate refusing to admit will reversed, and proceedings remitted to surrogate. — Opinion by Dtkman. J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ann Marie Lambert, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 897]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Upon her plea of guilty of one count of scheme to defraud in the second degree (Penal Law § 190.60), defendant was sentenced to a term of probation of three years, the first 90 days of which were to be served in the Onondaga County Correctional Facility. Additionally, she was ordered, as a condition of probation, to pay restitution in the amount of $431,482.59 plus a 10% surcharge, for a total of $474,630.85. Although defendant neither requested a hearing regarding the amount of restitution nor objected to the amount ordered, she has not forfeited or waived her right of review because of the " 'essential nature’ ” of the right to be sentenced in accordance with the law *(People v Fuller,*57 NY2d 152, 156; *see, People v Bernier,*197 AD2d 882).

Although a sentencing court may utilize the Probation Department "to act as a preliminary fact finder and submit its recommendations in a written report * * * in the end it is for the court, which alone must impose the sentence, to decide how much of the report, if any, to adopt and how much to reject” *(People v Fuller, supra,*at 158-159). Furthermore, where the trial or plea record and the probation report do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to calculate a proper restitution figure, a hearing must be conducted by the court *(see, People v Yong Ho Han,*200 AD2d 780, 782, *lv denied*83 NY2d 916; *People v James,*186 AD2d 679, 680, *Iv denied*81 NY2d 763).

Here, County Court ordered defendant to make restitution in an amount equal to one half of the total loss sustained by the victims as determined by the Probation Department. The record, however, supports a determination that the total loss sustained by the victims totalled $691,353.18. There is no basis in the record for the finding that an additional sum of $171,612 was sustained by four victims who did not complete victim statements and restitution claim forms. Furthermore, the court failed to consider the fact that several items in defendant’s possession that were "fruits” of the offense were turned over to the District Attorney and sold at an auction.

*1016Therefore, we modify the judgment by vacating the condition of probation that ordered defendant to make restitution and remit the matter to Onondaga County Court to conduct a hearing to determine the appropriate amount of restitution to be paid by defendant *(see, People v Bernier, supra).*(Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—Scheme to Defraud, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20914 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. MANUEL BLANCO-BELLO Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-224-2 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Blanco-Bello has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a briefin accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Blanco-Bello has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk