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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40829

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ALVARADO-ARANDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1878-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Alvarado-Aranda (Alvarado) appeals the 51-month sentence 

imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after 

deportation. He contends that the district court erroneously applied a 12-level 

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) based on his 1995 Illinois 

conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. Relying mainly on 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013), 

 

* 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

July 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
No. 13-40829

2

Alvarado argues that the Illinois statutory provisions under which he was 

convicted are broader than the definition of “drug trafficking offense” set forth 

in the commentary to § 2L1.2 because they criminalize the distribution of 

illegal drugs without remuneration.

As Alvarado concedes, this court’s review is for plain error because he

did not object to the enhancement in the district court. See Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, Alvarado must 

show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial 

rights. See id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct 

the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.

We recently rejected the argument that a conviction for giving or offering 

to give away a controlled substance for no remuneration does not constitute a 

felony drug trafficking offense for purposes of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) 

enhancement. United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 201, 205 (5th Cir. 

2015). In view of Martinez-Lugo, Alvarado fails to show that the district court 

committed a clear or obvious error by enhancing his offense level. The 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 13-40829 Document: 00513119737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2015
#### Donald A. MARTIN and Carrie S. Martin, Petitioners, v. Richard BONNER et al., Respondents.

No. 44661.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 283 So.2d 127.

ADKINS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Cleon Donald WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 20, 1972.

On Rehearing Oct. 22, 1973.

Judge C. Luckey, Jr., Public Defender, and Ralph Steinberg, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Cleon Donald Walker in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY,. JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

McNULTY, Judge.

We have treated this as a direct appeal from the entry of a. new judgment and sentence imposed upon appellant who had moved pursuant to Rule 3.850, R.Cr.P., to vacate the former judgment and sentence.

It appears that previously, in the aforementioned Rule 3.850 proceeding, this court remanded the cause for determination of *416whether the defendant, at that time under a life sentence as a fourth offender habitual criminal, had theretofore been validly convicted within the principles of *Gideon.*Upon remand, the lower court vacated the habitual criminal judgment and set aside the sentence therefor. In the same order, he adjudicated the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of being a *second*offender and imposed a ten year sentence. This appeal is from this new judgment and sentence.

The public defender filed an *Anders*brief. Appellant filed a pro. per. brief thereafter. In neither brief was it alleged that appellant was not present at the hearing before the trial court at which the new judgment and sentence were entered. Moreover, the point is not raised in any other pleading or assignment either here or below. Accordingly, no error being otherwise found, we affirmed.

Now, on rehearing, *and for the first time,*appellant alleges that he was not present before the lower court at the entry of the judgment or at imposition of the sentence presently in force. If that is true, the judgment and sentence are clearly void since each is an essential stage of the proceedings and no waiver of appellant’s presence thereat appears of record.1 Because of the fundamental nature of the allegation we consider it now, even though not previously expressly raised, to avoid further litigation. In view whereof, we have heretofore issued rules nisi to ascertain the truth thereof.

From the State’s responses to said rules it appears that in truth and in fact the trial court did indeed impose a new sentence in the absence of appellant and that no waiver of such presence was made. Such sentence is therefore fundamentally defective.

Accordingly, the sentence herein, contained in the order on Motion to Vacate of July 14, 1972, is reversed and the cause is remanded for resentencing with appellant being present. Such new sentence shall give credit for time already served under the sentence in the aforesaid July 14 order. Rehearing is, therefore, granted.

MANN, C. J., and PIERCE, (Ret.), J., concur.

1

. Thacker v. State, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 202.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 33-31932, 33-40222,
33-41854, 33-43856, 33-58766, 333-110460, 333-115724, 333-15933, 333-24187 and 333-28415) and in the
related Prospectuses, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-31439, 33-33887, 33-34112, 33-34834, 33-44519,
33-58929, 333-04021, 333-17889, 333-45935, 333-45939, 333-90645, 333-90647 and 333-75418) pertaining to
the 1987 Stock Option Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek, Inc. FlexCare Plus Retirement Savings Plan, the 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek
Unionized Employee Savings Plan, the Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Second Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of
Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. Deferred Investment Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. 1997
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. Amended and Restated Director Compensation and Deferral Investment Plan, the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of
Magnetek, Inc., the 2000 Employee Stock Plan of Magnetek, Inc. and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Magnetek, Inc., of our reports dated August 18, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Magnetek, Inc. included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
June 30, 2004.

|                                             | ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|-------------------------------------------- | -----------------
|Woodland Hills, California
September 9, 2004 |                  
|                                             |                  

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.8

                      CEO EMPLOYMENT CONTINUATION AGREEMENT

Network  Equipment  Technologies,  Inc. ("the Company") and Hubert Anthony Whyte
("Officer"),  in partial consideration for his continuing officer and employment
relationship and to encourage  continued  employment in the event of a potential
Change of Control, agree as follows:

1.   In the event of  Termination  of  Employment  of Officer  resulting  from a
     Corporate  Transaction,  Change of Control or Hostile  Take-Over  (as those
     terms are defined in the 1993 Stock Option Plan,  collectively  referred to
     in this Agreement as "Change of Control") or from  involuntary  termination
     for reasons other than cause, the Company will provide  severance  benefits
     as follows:

     a.   two years of Officer's base salary ("salary continuance"),

     b.   two  years of  Officer's  variable  compensation  (computed  using the
          mid-point of the applicable range and the company "meets plan"),

     c.   Officer level medical,  dental,  life and disability  insurance during
          the period of salary continuance, and

     d.   vesting  of  outstanding  stock  options  during  the period of salary
          continuance, except as provided in 3 below.

2.   "Termination  of  Employment"  of Officer  occurs when one of the following
     occurs:  he is terminated  without cause, job location is changed more than
     50 miles, his compensation is materially  reduced or  responsibilities  are
     substantially  altered or reduced (without express consent of the employee)
     by the Company,  or by any successor to the Company in conjunction  with or
     within one year after the close of a Change of Control.

3.   In the event of a Termination of Employment in conjunction with a Change of
     Control during the first year of  employment,  then vesting of one-third of
     the outstanding  stock options held by Officer shall accelerate at the time
     of such  Termination.  In the  event  of a  Termination  of  Employment  in
     conjunction  with a Change of Control  after the first year of  employment,
     then  vesting  of all  outstanding  stock  options  held by  Officer  shall
     accelerate  at the time of such  Termination.  All vested  options shall be
     exercisable for the duration of the life of the option.

4.   In order to receive the foregoing,  Officer agrees to execute the Company's
     release and  non-competition  agreement at the time of any such Termination
     of Employment.

Agreed this 1st day of June, 1999.

NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:         /s/ Roger A. Barney                       /s/ Hubert Anthony Whyte
            -------------------------                 --------------------------
                Roger A. Barney                             (Signature)

Title:      Sr. VP Corporate Services

June 1, 1999                                                 N.E.T. Confidential
CALL BY:

CALL TO:

Organization:

Date:

Time:

PMN: 15-0026 Organization:

Phone:

Concerning what? CBI: No

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of earnings of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
as of and for the three-month period ended July 31, 2000 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>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          18,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  105,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     90,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,468
<PP&E>                                         170,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 556,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,804
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   556,762
<SALES>                                        138,390
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,390
<CGS>                                           89,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (540)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI# I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000676

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

In the Matter of the DECLARATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST OF PEARL W. MA, dated June 23, 1988, a.k.a. PEARL W. MA REVOCABLE TRUST, dated June 23, 1988, a.k.a. PEARL WONG MA TRUST, dated June 23, 1988.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (T. NO. 1CTR-21-0000082 (Trust))

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal With Prejudice, filed December 28, 2021, by Successor Trustee-Appellee Kent Ma, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has not been docketed; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b); (3) the stipulation is dated and signed by all self-represented parties and counsel for all other parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) because the appeal has not been docketed, dismissal is authorized by HRAP Rule 42(a). Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-21-0000676 04-JAN-2022 07:52 AM Dkt. 7 OAWSTNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI# I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 4, 2022. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

2
**Exhibit 32-2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: November 14, 2005

| /s/ Stephen   R. Wherry      |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                              |   |
| Stephen R.   Wherry          |   |
| Vice   President, Treasurer, |   |
| Assistant   Secretary and    |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer    |   |

----
#### DAVID SMITH *vs.*WILLIAM SMITH’S Executrix.

Scraps of paper admitted in evidence as a book of original entries.

This was an action of assumpsit for work and labor, goods sold and delivered, &c., with a count for use and occupation.

The plaintiff presented several scraps of paper as his book of *533original entries; which, though very irregular, the court permitted to go before the jury, he swearing to them as original entries.

*The Court*

said that long practice, and perhaps necessity, required the admission of such evidence. *(a)*

(a)

*Joshua Hall*vs. *N. Field and A. Wiltbank.*March 18, 1795, Supreme Court, Sussex. Covenant for the hire and one-third value of the schooner Polly Hall, on charter party of affreightment. *Ridgely*and *Bayard,*for defendant; *Miller*and *Wilson,*for plaintiff.

Defendant’s counsel offered the book (being a sheet of paper sewed together in octavo,) of one of the defendant’s, (Field,) together with his oath in evidence.

Plaintiff’s counsel objected that this was not a book regularly and fairly kept; here appears to be only one account; it appears! o have been written all at once, it is agreed that at least many of the charges were written long after the transaction.

*Per Curiam.*Read, *Chief*Justice.—The book is tobe read. ' We are under a necessity, considering the irregular practice under the act of assumptions, to admit the book, though not such as that act requires: the practice under an act is the best construction of the act. One instance, thirty years back, occurs to me; since which I have not objected to such exhibits. It was a bit of paper about two inches square and entered sometime after the transaction but was the only eivdence, and it was admitted on argument at Dover. There is a similar act in Pennsylvania, and there a closet door with chalks, &c., was admitted. It appears from the book several of the charges were entered long after the transactions; but the jury will give it its credit. *(Wilson's MS. Rep.*64.)

Verdict for plaintiff.
# C_2023024EN.01003202.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/32

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 16 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — PB v Geos SAS, Geos International Consulting Limited

(Case C-639/21) (1)

(2023/C 24/44)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Shasta-Trinity National Forest; California; I-5 Corridor Fuels 
Reduction Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is withdrawing its Notice 
of Intent issued on April 22, 2011, for preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-5 Corridor Fuels Reduction Project. No 
significant issues were identified during this scoping period or any 
other opportunity to comment. Upon further evaluation, it also appears 
that there are no potential significant impacts to the human 
environment associated with the project. As a result, the Forest is 
withdrawing its intent to prepare an EIS and is now preparing an 
Environmental Assessment (EA). All comments previously received 
regarding this project will be retained and considered in the 
development of the EA. If it is determined that the project may have 
significant impacts, the EIS process will be reinitiated and a notice 
of intent will be published.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice and 
requests to be added to the project mailing list should be directed to 
Andrew Spain, Shasta Lake Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National 
Forest, 14225 Holiday Road, Redding, CA 96003. Telephone: (530) 242-
5548. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03627073626a6d4365702d6566672d7670"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8feefcffeee6e1cfe9fca1e9eaeba1fafc">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals who have previously 
submitted comments on this project will remain on the project mailing 
list and do not need to contact the Forest.

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Chris French,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System .
[FR Doc. 2018-14578 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3411-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered August 7, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01270

- CV

REGINA DELL BROWN , ET AL. , Appellant s

V.

MERRY OUTLAW, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 06513



### O RDER

Appellee’s brief was originally due on July 25, 2018. Before the Court is appellee’s

August 3, 2018 motion requesting an extension of time to September 28 to file a br ief. We

GRANT the motion to the extent that appellee shall file a brief by August 27, 2018

.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Danny WACTOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-703.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.