alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50653

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lucas Victorino-Tista, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 21-50671

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lucas Vidorino Tista-Sis, 

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50653 Document: 00516156774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 21-50653

c/w No. 21-50671

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-199-1

USDC No. 4:21-CR-61-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Lucas Victorino-Tista appeals his conviction and sentence for entry 

after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), along with the 

revocation of the term of supervised release he was serving at the time of the 

offense. Because his appellate brief does not address the validity of the 

revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge to that 

judgment. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the first time on appeal, Victorino-Tista contends that it violates 

the Constitution to treat a prior conviction that increases the statutory 

maximum under § 1326(b) as a sentencing factor, rather than as an element 

of the offense. He correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he wishes to 

preserve it for further review. The Government has moved without 

opposition for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time 

to file its brief.

As the Government asserts and as Victorino-Tista concedes, the sole 

issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States 

v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the Government’s 

position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 21-50653 Document: 00516156774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
No. 21-50653

c/w No. 21-50671

3

question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 

F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

Case: 21-50653 Document: 00516156774 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2022
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-091-CV

ERIC GANT	APPELLANT

	V.

24 HOUR FITNESS WORLD WIDE INC.	APPELLEES

(“24 HOUR FITNESS SPORT”), MARK S. 

MASTON, MARCUS GUNN, POLICE OFFICER

OFFICER GAROFANO, CITY OF ARLINGTON (POLICE

ARLINGTON (POLICE DEPARTMENT - RECORDS AND LEGAL), JUDGE 

RECORDS AND LEGAL), JUDGE SHERRY HILL OF CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM

OF CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM CCR#1, MR. MULLEN, ESQ., AND WANDA BOYER

MR. MULLEN, ESQ., AND WANDA BOYER

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

	FROM THE 17TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	aApplellant Eric Gant appeals from the trial court’s March 14, 2003 order grandting sumrmary judgment to appelleses City of Arlington and Police Officer AGarofano.  On April 8, 2003, this court informed appellant that it believed it lacked jursidisdiction over the appeal becasuse the motion for summary judgment did not dispsose of all the defendants in the trial court.  This court provided the parties to this appeal oan opportunity to demonstrate jurisdiction, and Gant provideda a response.  Gan’tt’s response does not demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction o ver this inerterlocuotory appeal.  We dsismiss he the appeal for want of juristdiction.  Stee Tex R. App. P. 42.3(a_), 43.2(f_).  

							SAM J. DAY

							JUSTICE

PANEL D:   DAY , LIVINGSTON, andAND DAUPHINOT, JJ.

		DO NOT PUBLISH

		Tex. R. App. P.  47.2(b)

DEKLIVERED:   MAYAay 22, 2003
EXHIBIT
23.3




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 To the
Board of Directors
 NaturalNano,
Inc.
 
 We hereby
consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Numbers 333-148163 and
333-132607 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 29, 2007 on the consolidated
statement of stockholders' (deficiency) equity of NaturalNano, Inc. for the
period from December 22, 2004 (inception) to December 31, 2005 and the year
ended December 31, 2006, and the amounts in the cumulative columns in the
consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the period from
December 22, 2004 (inception) to December 31, 2006, which appears in the
December 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaturalNano, Inc.
 
 
 /s/
Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
 
 GOLDSTEIN
GOLUB KESSLER LLP
 New York,
New York
 
 April 15,
2009
Exhibit 32   Certifications   In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, of American General Finance Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/Frederick W. GeissingerFrederick W. GeissingerPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:November 14, 2008   60
1 

### I s ra e l s, Ken

Fr o m: I s r ae l s

, K en

S e nt: T u e s d ay

, J a nu a r y 27

, 2015 10 : 05 AM

T o: ' B a r b a r a B a ird'

S u b j ec t: R E: Pec h a ng a R e d e s ign a ti o n R e qu e st

H i Bar b ara –

T h a n k s f o r y o u r e m ail

. R e g ar d i ng y o u r qu e s t i o n r e g ar d i ng i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a te d t o t h e P e c h a ng a m o n i t o r,

p l e as e s ee b e l o w:

In t h e P e c h a ng a N P R M d o c k et ( d o c k et n u m b e r E P A

- R 09 -O A R

- 2 01 4

- 0 8 6 9 ), p l e a s e s e e t h e c h ar t i n d o c k et i t e m C13

, t h e d isc u s si o n i n d o c ke t i t e m D

- 0 1

, d o c k et i t e m A

- 01

, a nd d o c k e t i t e m C

- 04

.

In s h o r t

, a n e qu i p m e n t iss u e ca u s e d E P A t o i n v ali d a t e a nu m b e r o f m o n t h s o f d a t a, a nd t aki ng i n t o

acc o un t t h e e x t e n t o f i n v al i d a te d d at a, E P A f o und t h e d a t a f o r 2 0 1 1 t o b e i n c o m p l ete

. T h e iss u e w a s r e s o l v e d b y

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 11

, a nd t h e d a t a fr om t h e P e c h a ng a mo n i t o r is c o n si d e r e d c o m p l e t e f o r 2 0 1 2 a nd 2 0 13

. I h o p e

t h is is h e l p f u l i n p r e p ari ng y o u r c om m e n t s

.

T h a n ks,

K e n I sra e l s

4 1 5

- 9 47

- 4 1 0 2

F r o m: Bar b ara Bair d [ m ail t o : BBair d@ a q m d.g ov ]

S en t: T hu rs d a y

, J a nu ar y 2 2

, 2 01 5 6 : 1 7 P M

T o: I sra e ls, K e n

Sub j e c t: P e c h a ng a R e d e si g n a t i o n R e qu e s t

H i K e n. I a m w o r ki ng o n o u r c om m e n t s o n t h e P e c h a n g a r e d e si gn a t i o n r e qu e s t

. R e g ar d i ng t h e i n c om p l et e d a t a a t

P e c h a ng a, d o y o u h a pp e n t o k n o w i f t h e r e is a p a t t e r n t o i t ? F o r e x a m p l e

, ar e t h e y c o n sis te n t l y m issi ng s u m m e r t i m e

d a t a

, o r w i n te r t i m e

, o r s u m m e r i n o n e ye a r a nd w i n t e r i n a n o t h e r, o r ra n d o m

, o r v e r y f ew d a y s, o r w h a t i s t h e p a t t e r n if

a n y? H is m a y b e alr e a d y i n t h e r e c o r d bu t I a m n o t t o o g oo d w i t h te c hn ical s t u ff s o if i t is c o n v e n i e n t c o u l d y o u p o i n t m e

i n t h e ri gh t d ir e c t i o n ? T h a n ks



## B a r b a r a B a i r d

Di s t r ict C o un s el

S C A QM D

( 9 0 9 ) 39 6

- 23 02

P P l e a s e co ns i d e r t h e e nv ir o n m e n t be f o r e p ri n t i ng t h i s e m a il.

CON F ID E N T IA L I T Y

NO T I C E : T h is e m ail m ay c ont a i n m a t e r ial th a t is c onf i d e nt ial, p r ivile g e d o r a tto r n ey w o r k p r odu c t fo r t h e s o le u se of

th e i nt e nd e d r eci p ie nt . A n y r eview, r elia n ce o r d is t r i but i on b y oth e r r eci p ie nt s wi thout e x p r ess p e r m issi on is p r oh i b i t e d

. I f y ou a r e not th e

i nt e nd e d r eci p ie nt

, o r th e e mp l o yee o r a g e nt r es pon si b le t o d elive r i t to th e i nt e n d e d r eci p ie nt

, p lease c ont a c t th e se n d e r a nd d ele t e all

c op ies.
#### Gary Franklin PIGGOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Johnny Lee JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

Johnny Lee Jones, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme *91Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
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
CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mercedes Walton, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and I, Jill M. Taymans, Chief Financial 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Mercedes WaltonMercedes WaltonChief Executive OfficerMarch 1, 2010




/s/ Jill M. TaymansJill M. TaymansVice President, Finance, Chief Financial OfficerMarch 1, 2010
EXHIBIT 99(a)
                                                                   -------------


                           INSILCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                 SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (In thousands)
<TABLE><CAPTION>
                                                                       (2)
                                                          (1)        Charged
                                          Balance at   Charged to    to other                 Changes due to    Charged   Balance at
                                          beginning    costs and     accounts    Deductions    acquisitions        to       end of
     Description                          of period    expenses     (describe)   (describe)   or dispositions     APIC      period
     -----------                          ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ---------------   -------   ----------
<S>                                       <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>           <C>               <C>       <C>
For the year ended December 31, 1999
 Allowances deducted from assets
  Accounts receivable (for doubtful
   receivables)                           $      975          931           --      (261) (a)        131  (c)        --       1,776
  Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)       1,641          879           --      (328) (b)      1,196  (c)        --       3,388
  Income Tax expense valuation allowance     (35,457)         988        1,952        --             204            263     (32,050)

For the year ended December 31, 2000
 Allowances deducted from assets
  Accounts receivable (for doubtful
   receivables)                           $    1,776        1,464           --     (1,393) (a)        12  (d)        --       1,859
  Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)       3,388          797           --     (1,011) (b)      (820) (d)        --       2,354
  Income Tax expense valuation allowance     (32,050)      10,903           --         --             --          3,882     (17,265)

For the year ended December 31, 2001
 Allowances deducted from assets
  Accounts receivable (for doubtful
   receivables)                           $    1,859        1,148           --       (518) (a)        96  (e)        --       2,585
  Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)       2,354        3,788           --       (401) (b)       402  (e)        --       6,143
  Income Tax expense valuation allowance     (17,265)      (5,365)          --         --             --             --     (22,630)
</TABLE>

  (a)  Primarily accounts written off, net of recoveries
  (b)  Primarily obsolete parts written off
  (c)  Primarily due to the purchase of EFI, the sale of Romac and the
       shutdown of McKenica.
  (d)  Primarily due to the purchase of TAT, PCM and the transfer of
       McKenica balances with the sale of the  "Automotive Businesses"
  (e)  Primarily due to the purchase of InNet.
#### Teresa P. Pence ADAMS v. TOWN OF OXFORD.

7 Div. 590.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 20, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 25, 1978.

Gordon F. Bailey, Jr., Anniston, for appellant.

John Rufus Phillips, Anniston, for appel-lee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Robert M. Parker, Judge.

Convictions for destroying private property and for assault and battery AFFIRMED without opinion.

All the judges concur.

Certiorari denied, Ala., 362 So.2d 654.
================================================================================

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 Semper Resources Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Mark G.
Hollo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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.


/s/ Mark G. Hollo
-----------------------------------------
Mark G. Hollo
Chief Executive Officer








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,793
<SECURITIES>                                     2,759
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,332
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               190,801
<PP&E>                                          38,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,416
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,582
<SALES>                                         84,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,232
<CGS>                                           64,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,398
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,545
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,895
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,895
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### James O. NEWMAN et ux. v. Gordon L. SAUNDERS, Jr., Peoples Bank & Trust Company and C. R. Bolton, Trustee.

No. 50603.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 6, 1978.

Carr & Goodman, Dudley R. Carr, Tupelo, for appellants.

Billy W. Shelton, Tupelo, for appellees.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., SUGG and COFER, JJ., and KENNETH B. ROBERTSON, Commissioner.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lee County; George F. Adams, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY CLIFF HALLETT, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-93-8, CA-97-517-2) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Cliff Hallett, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Cliff Hallett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Hallett , Nos. CR-93-8; CA-97-517-2 (M.D.N.C. June 22, 1998). Further, we note that Hallett’s claim regarding Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) is meritless, because the coconspirator testimony that he attacks was not hearsay. Finally, Hallett waived appellate review of his claim under 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) (1994) by failing to raise this claim in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). 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
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-218-000]


Algonquin Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

February 11, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1997, Algonquin Gas Transmission 
Company (Algonquin), 1284 Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02135 filed 
in Docket No. CP96-797-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205, and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.212) for approval and permission to construct and 
operate a delivery tap for New York State Electric and Gas Corporation 
(NYSEG), under the blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP87-317-
000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more 
fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    Algonquin states that it proposes to construct and operate a 
delivery tap in Somers, New York. Algonquin further states that it will 
construct two taps, metering facilities and associated auxiliary 
facilities at an estimated cost of $211,000. It is indicated that NYSEG 
will pay all costs for the facilities installed and will construct all 
non-jurisdictional facilities located downstream of those constructed 
by Algonquin. Algonquin asserts that it does not propose to increase 
the Maximum Daily Delivery Obligation under firm service agreements 
between Algonquin and NYSEG.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Sec. 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activities shall be deemed to be 
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a 
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3853 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M