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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-50155

Summary Calendar

_____________________

LOUIS SEAN BODWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CRYSTAL CITY DETENTION CENTER;

JIM GREER, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-96-CV-31

_________________________________________________________________

September 17, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Sean Bodway, Missouri state prisoner #514692, argues

that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. He argues that the

defendants deprived him of adequate medical care and that the

district court should have allowed him to amend his complaint to

state an actionable claim.
 

1Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).

-2-

We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of the

Spears1 hearing, the opinion of the district court, and the

appellant’s brief, and affirm the dismissal of the complaint as

frivolous substantially for the reasons given by the district court

in support of its ruling. See Bodway v. Crystal City Detention

Center, No. DR-96-CV-31 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 1997).

Bodway argues that if he had been given the opportunity to

amend his complaint in the district court, he could have stated an

actionable claim. A pro se prisoner is entitled to factually

develop his complaint before a proper § 1915(e) determination can

be made. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994).

Bodway made no reference to the warden during his testimony given

at the Spears hearing. He did not seek in the district court to

amend his complaint to add any other defendants or to add

additional claims against the warden; nor has he argued on appeal

any specific additional facts that he would allege in an amended

complaint if the case was remanded to the district court for

further development. Bodway has failed to demonstrate that the

district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint

against Greer as frivolous. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994).
-3-

Bodway has not argued on appeal that his excessive-force claim

against a detention facility guard was improperly dismissed as

frivolous. Thus, the claim is deemed abandoned on appeal. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748

(5th Cir. 1987).

A F F I R M E D.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS07-4-000]


Central Vermont Public Service Corporation; Notice of Filing

May 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 25, 2007, Central Vermont Public Service 
Corporation filed an application for partial exemption from the 
standards of conduct pursuant to Order No. 2004, 105 FERC 61,248 
(2003), and sections 358.1(d), 358.2(a), 358.4(a) and (c) and 358.5(a) 
and (b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcfaf9eefff3d2d0d5d2d9efc9ccccd3cec8fcdad9cedf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="df999a8d9c90b1b3b6b1ba8caaafafb0adab9fb9baadbcf1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 25, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9316 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.2

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

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

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


                               /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: May 10, 2006            ____________________________________________
                              Donald R. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
No. 96-5611.

#### Bowling *v.*Cates, Chief Judge, Circuit Court of Florida, Alachua County.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certio-rari denied.
* 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. 00-50730

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN DE DIOS OAXACA-MARTINEZ, also known as El Can, also

known as José Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-00-CR-275-4-H

- - - - - - - - - -

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan De

Dios Oaxaca-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). Oaxaca-Martinez has not filed a response. 

Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
No. 00-50730

-2-

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information
extracted from the audited consolidated financial
statements of the Company included in the Report on
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-24-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 APR-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   APR-24-1999
<CASH>                               9,779
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       77,015
<ALLOWANCES>                         2,234
<INVENTORY>                         78,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   190,387
<PP&E>                              54,256
<DEPRECIATION>                    (11,951)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     437,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               73,193
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                17
<OTHER-SE>                         202,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       437,708
<SALES>                            521,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   521,704
<CGS>                              341,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      341,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   149,933
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  12,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     17,615
<INCOME-TAX>                         8,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  8,896
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                         8,896
<EPS-BASIC>                          .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .60


</TABLE>
### The carnotite prospects of the Craven Canyon area, Fall River County, South Dakota

By: Lincoln R. PageJack Allison Redden

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir175

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 48795.

#### Petition 6364-R of Frankel Carbon & Ribbon Co. (Denver).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It appeared from the uncontradicted testimony that the entries relate to a class of merchandise never carried in stock by the foreign exporter but always purchased under terms for delivery 6 months hence. The collector of customs filed appeals (Reappraisements 141731-A and 141732-A) claiming the higher price agreed to under the later of two contracts to be representative of the proper dutiable value. At the hearing it was found that the facts came squarely within the decision in *White Lamb*Finlay, *Inc.*v. *United States*(29 C. C. P. A. 199, C. A. D. 192). In accordance therewith and from the facts the court was satisfied that the entries were made without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter year ended      December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15      U.S.C  78m or 78o(d));and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Geoffrey Donaldson       |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | Geoffrey      Donaldson      |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |

|   | (1) | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter      ended  December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934 (15 U.S.C  78m or 78o(d));and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Karen Nazzareno  |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | Karen      Nazzareno |
|   | Controller           |

----
Before the Second Division,

April 2, 1943

No. 48161.

#### Protest 824866-G of Mason Bros. & Tarlin (Boston).

Opinion by

KincheloeJ, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the balloons in question are- the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 40493 the protest was sustained.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0002895

24-OCT-2013

07:55 AM
No. 96-5595.

#### Smith *v.*Arizona.

Super. Ct. Ariz., Pima County. Certiorari denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41749

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIO DUENEZ GUTIERREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-440-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Julio Duenez Gutierrez 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. 

Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Gutierrez maintains that he pleaded guilty to
No. 02-41749

-2-

an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term

of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for

that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Gutierrez acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.
May 12, 1952

No. 56692.

Suit 4671.

#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1293 affirmed March 18, 1952. C. A. D. 483.
Before the Third Division,

September 11, 1940

No. 44301.

#### Protest 14382-K of Boston & Lockport Block Co. (New York)

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The collector’s report indicated that the sandalwood' and the immediate containers thereof were not marked to indicate the country-of origin. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 39129.

#### Protests 932826-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

No evidence was offered in support of the claims made. The protests were dismissed on the authority of Abstract 15400.
No. 40432.

#### Petition 5668-R of Robinson & Sverdlik (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It appeared that through an oversight the petitioners’ clerk neglected to inform the brdker that' the value was in terms of gold florins rather than paper florins and entry was made on the latter basis. Being satisfied that there was no intention to defraud the revenue the court granted the petition.
33668.

#### THE STATE v. BRADSHAW.

Argued June 19, 1978

Decided September 6, 1978.

*Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellant.

Per curiam.

Although important questions were presented by applicant in this case, the court does not feel that it can adequately address the issues without the entire record of proceedings in the trial court. Therefore, we decide that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.

*Case dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 74-5938.

#### Hayes *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
* 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 June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41749 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIO DUENEZ GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-440-1

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Julio Duenez Gutierrez 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. Gutierrez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Gutierrez maintains that he pleaded guilty toNo. 02-41749 -2- an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Gutierrez acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.