alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50260

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

J. SANTOS FELIX-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Santos FelixHernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-11-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

J. Santos Felix-Hernandez (Felix) was convicted of being an alien found 

in the United States without permission after having been previously deported, 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; he was sentenced to six months in prison and 

two years of non-reporting supervised release. On appeal, Felix challenges the 

* 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

May 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50260 Document: 00512622118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
No. 13-50260

district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss his indictment. He contends that 

he cannot be “found in” the United States because he had voluntarily presented 

himself for immigration inspection when he entered the southbound exit lane 

at the port of entry. 

“A challenge to an indictment based on the legal sufficiency of 

uncontested facts is an issue of law reviewed de novo.” United States v. Flores, 

404 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 2005). To prove Felix’s offense of conviction, the 

Government was required to establish four elements: (1) alienage, (2) arrest 

and deportation, (3) unlawful presence in the United States, and (4) lack of the 

Attorney General’s consent to reenter. United States v. Flores-Peraza, 58 F.3d 

164, 166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Felix stipulated to the facts necessary to prove these elements, namely, 

that he was a citizen of Mexico, he was previously deported, he was “in the 

United States” when he was stopped (encountered) by the immigration officer,

and he did not receive permission to renter the United States. See FloresPeraza, 58 F.3d at 166; see United States v. Ramos-Flores, 233 F. App’x 347, 

348, 350 (5th Cir. 2007). His reliance upon United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 

206 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2000), and United States v. Canals-Jimenez, 943 F.2d 

1284 (11th Cir. 1991), is misplaced. In those cases, the alien defendants were 

attempting to enter the United States through a port of entry. Here, Felix had 

already illegally entered the United States without detection and was 

attempting to exit the United States through a port of entry.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50260 Document: 00512622118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2014
#### Zachariah Robinson, Appellant, *vs.*Susan Brown, *et al.,*Respondent.

1. Judgment affirmed.

*Appeal from Linn County Court of Common Pleas.*

*Easley Burgess,*for Appellant.

*Jl. W. Mullins,*for Respondent.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit for partition of land. Three commissioners were appointed to make the partition, two of whom agreed upon a report dividing the land in kind amongst the parties. The other commissioner reported that he did not agree to the report and did not consider that a just division had been made.

The majority report was confirmed and final judgment entered.

The plaintiff Robinson moved to set aside the majority report upon the alleged ground that there was not an equal division of the lands according to the rights of the parties; a number of affidavits were read upon the trial of the motion and both sides introduced evidence to set aside and sustain the report. The evidence was contradictory, and upon the whole evidence the court sustained the report of the majority.

I have examined the evidence and see no sufficient reason to interfere with the finding and judgment of the Court.

. Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

141034 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141034 

 COA: 285696 

Bay CC: 07-010548-FC 

SHAWN MICHAEL COMMIRE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31562]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Frontier International Forwarders, 6073 N.W. 167 Street, Suite C-10, 
Miami, FL 33015, Officer: Leylani del Valle, President
Superior Freight Services, Inc., 2600 East 81st Street, Bloomington, MN 
55425, Officers: Todd A. Nelson, President; Paul J. Goff, Vice 
President
Wimpex, Inc., 2983 Center Court, Eagan, MN 55121, Officers: Mark 
Culley, President; Chris Mady, Vice President
Globe Express Services, Ltd., 3801-F1 Beam Road, Charlotte, NC 28217, 
Officers: Edouard T. Rassie, President; Antoine G. Bikhazi, Vice 
President.

    Dated: November 26, 1997.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31562 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
#### CITY OF WEST MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph P. ISERN, Econo-Way Exterminating Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney, Appellees. CITY OF WEST MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. CHAS. T. PIERCE & SONS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Richard E. Gerstein, State Attorney, Appellees.

Nos. 69-497, 69-500.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 6, 1970.

Allen Clements, Jr., Miami Beach, for appellant.

Norman F. Solomon and Jeffrey M. Cohen, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

' PER CURIAM.

The points on appeal and facts presented in these consolidated appeals are so similar to those which we considered in City of Miami Beach v. Solomon, Fla.App., 228 So.2d 437 (Third District Court of Appeal) no purpose would be served in setting them forth herein. Our holding in Solomon supra, is controlling in these appeals; therefore, the judgments appealed are reversed with' directions to dismiss the complaints.

Reversed with directions.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer


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 Healthway Shopping Network, Inc. a Florida corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Cleveland Gary, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.








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


/s/ Cleveland GaryCleveland GaryChief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)February 5, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         268,191
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,601,569
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 44,737,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,251,669
<PP&E>                                      42,849,037
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,585,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              74,418,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,544,271
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       758,141
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,529,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                74,418,055
<SALES>                                    159,447,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           159,447,884
<CGS>                                      138,580,788
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              153,802,031
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,168)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,293,189
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,464,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,294,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,170,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,170,832
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.2.1

   Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002,
which this statement accompanies, (the "Form 10-Q") 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 that the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                         /s/ Eugene R. McGrath
                                         Eugene R. McGrath


Dated: August 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2093 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2093

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make all fact sheets of 
 the Department of Veterans Affairs available in English, Spanish, and 
 Tagalog, and other commonly spoken languages, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans and Family Information 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FACT SHEETS.

    (a) Languages.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall make 
available versions of all fact sheets of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs in--
            (1) English;
            (2) Spanish;
            (3) Tagalog; and
            (4) each of the 10 most commonly spoken languages, other 
        than English, in the United States that are not otherwise 
        covered by paragraphs (2) and (3).
    (b) Website.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish and 
maintain a publicly available website of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs that contains links to all fact sheets of the Veterans Benefits 
Administration, Veterans Health Administration, and of the National 
Cemetery Administration. The website shall be accessible by a clearly 
labeled hyperlink on the homepage of the Department.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit a 
report to Congress regarding fact sheets described in subsection (a) 
and details of the Language Access Plan of the Department of Veteran 
Affairs. The report shall include the following:
            (1) What the Secretary determines constitutes a fact sheet 
        of the Department for purposes of this Act.
            (2) How such fact sheets are utilized and distributed other 
        than on and through the website of the Department.
            (3) How such Language Access Plan is communicated to 
        veterans, family members of veterans, and caregivers.
            (4) The roles and responsibilities of patient advocates in 
        the coordination of care for veterans with limited English 
        proficiency, family members of such veterans, and caregivers.
            (5) Other demographic information that the Secretary 
        determines appropriate regarding veterans with limited English 
        proficiency.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1739

In Re: HENRY EARL MILLER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:04-cr-00022-HFF-3)

Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Henry Earl Miller has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s recharacterization of a letter as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances, when “the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right.” In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C. , 460 F.3d 576, 592 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1381 (2007). “Courts are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). For the reasons stated by this court in the denial of Miller’s prior mandamus petition, In re Miller , 256 F. App’x 604 (4th Cir. Nov. 30, 2007) (No. 09-1739), he is not eligible for mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny Miller’s motion to recuse. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### William D. SANDERS, Appellant, v. Kenneth C. IMPELLITIER et al., Appellees.

No. 73-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

*69William D. Sanders and Donald L. Bur-rie, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

Richard A. Bird of Bird & Carpenter, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, in a civil action for damages, filed interlocutory appeal seeking review of an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for inspection and discovery and denying the defendant’s motion for a protective order. The order is non-appealable and we, therefore, lack jurisdiction. We decline to treat the interlocutory appeal as a petition for common law cer-tiorari as it has not been made to appear that appellant does not have a full, adequate and complete remedy by appeal after final judgment. Kauffman v. King, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 24; Simpson v. Broward County, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 193; Bland v. Mitchell, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 224.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Michael R. Coltrane, President and Chief Executive Officerof CT Communications, Inc., certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CTCommunications, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report.
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
     (b)  [Intentionally omitted]
     (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     (d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 6, 2003   By: /s/ Michael R. Coltrane        Michael R. ColtranePresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2042 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect Federal employees from 

retaliation for the lawful use of Federal records, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York (for herself and Mr. CONNOLLY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to protect Federal 

employees from retaliation for the lawful use of Federal 

records, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Employee Ac5 cess to Information Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2042 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROTECTIONS AGAINST RETALIATION FOR LAWFUL 

2 USE OF FEDERAL RECORDS BY FEDERAL EM3 PLOYEES. 

4 (a) PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION.—Section 

5 2302(b)(9) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

9 after the semicolon; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(E) the employee or applicant for employ12 ment— 

13 ‘‘(i) making a request for information 

14 pursuant to section 552 (commonly re15 ferred to as the ‘Freedom of Information 

16 Act’) or subsection (d) of section 552a 

17 (commonly referred to as the ‘Privacy Act 

18 of 1974’); or 

19 ‘‘(ii) pursuing any administrative or 

20 judicial action with respect to such request, 

21 including seeking assistance or to engage 

22 in dispute resolution, as described in sec23 tion 552.’’. 

24 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

25 (1) TITLE 5.—Sections 1214, 1215(a)(3)(B), 

26 1221, 2302, and 7703 of title 5, United States 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2042 IH

1 Code, are amended by striking ‘‘or (D)’’ in each in2 stance and inserting ‘‘(D), or (E)’’. 

3 (2) WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ENHANCE4 MENT ACT OF 2012.—Section 116(b)(1)(A) of the 

5 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 

6 (Public Law 112–199) is amended by striking ‘‘or 

7 (D)’’ and inserting ‘‘(D), or (E)’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Ellis Arnold BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, filed on
the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Michael R. ColtraneMichael R. ColtraneChief Executive OfficerAugust 4, 2005/s/ James E. HausmanJames E. HausmanChief Financial OfficerAugust 4, 2005