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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50154

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LORENZO GARCIA-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-63-1

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

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Lorenzo GarciaGonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00007-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.N.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08618E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed as appellant 

filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 28, 2022
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

I,James L. Koenig,  Chief Financial Officer of Eye Care International, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

| (1) | the quarterly report on Form10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") which this statementaccompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |  the information containedin this Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofEye Care International, Inc..                                                          |

Dated: February 1, 2004

|  | /s/ James L. Koenig        James L. KoenigChief Financial Officer |
|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<Page>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.3.2

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

I, Edward J. Rasmussen, the Chief Financial Officer of Orange and Rockland
Utilities, Inc. (the "Company") certify that the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, which this statement
accompanies, (the "Form 10-K") 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-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Edward J. Rasmussen
                                                -------------------------
                                                Edward J. Rasmussen


Dated: February 27, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 21 CNF INC.
SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
December 31, 2004 CNF and its significant subsidiaries were: State orPercent of
    
    Province orStock Owned
    
    Country ofParent and Significant Subsidiaries
    
    by CNF
    
    IncorporationCNF Inc.
    
    
    
    DelawareSignificant Subsidiaries of CNF Inc.:Con-Way Transportation Services, Inc.
    
    100
    
    DelawareMenlo Worldwide, LLC
    
    100
    
    DelawareEmery Worldwide Airlines, Inc.
    
    100
    
    Nevada
II 

Calendar No. 9 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 177 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2013 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. VITTER, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

RUBIO, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. WICKER, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

BLUNT, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. INHOFE, 

Mr. FLAKE, Mr. COATS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. BURR, Mr. 

COCHRAN, Mrs. FISCHER, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. 

ALEXANDER, Mr. LEE, Mr. HATCH, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; which was read the 

first time 

JANUARY 30, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2010 entirely. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•S 177 PCS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ObamaCare Repeal 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AF5 FORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE HEALTH 

6 CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT 

7 OF 2010. 

8 (a) PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE

9 ACT.—Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Pro10 tection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), 

11 such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended 

12 or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such 

13 Act had not been enacted. 

14 (b) HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILI15 ATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective as of the enactment of 

16 the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

17 (Public Law 111–152), such Act is repealed, and the pro18 visions of law amended or repealed by such Act are re19 stored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted. 

20 SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT. 

21 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

22 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

23 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

24 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

25 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

26 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•S 177 PCS

1 House of Representatives, as long as such statement has 

2 been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Calendar No. 9 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 177 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Reconciliation Act of 2010 entirely. Care Act and the Health Care and Education 

JANUARY 30, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      906 CERTIFICATION**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006                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 this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of The                Amacore Group, Inc. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

|   | /s/                Clark A. MarcusClark                A. MarcusChief                Executive Officer |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Elizabeth Cole EDGERTON and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Robert A. RUSSELL and Roberta Ann Russell, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 72-403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; Richard B. Muldrew, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 21

                                        Continental Global Group, Inc.

                               Subsidiaries of the Registrant at March 15, 2003
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Subsidiaries (1)                          Organization                            Parent Company

<S>                                       <C>                                     <C>
Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.     Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment
Ltd.                                                                              Company

BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.                    Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Continental ACE Pty. Ltd.                 Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Services Pty. Ltd.        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Conveyor Components       Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.
Pty. Ltd.

A. Crane Pty. Ltd.                        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.     Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd. - 60%
                                                                                  Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd. - 40%

Continental Conveyor International Inc.   Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental FSW Ltd.                      United Kingdom                          Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

Continental Conveyor Ltd.                 United Kingdom                          Continental FSW Ltd.

Continental MECO (Proprietary) Ltd.       South Africa                            Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

MECO McCallum Pty. Ltd.                   Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Goodman Conveyor Company                  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.
</TABLE>


(1)  Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company, except
     for Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN NO. 03-01-00496-CR
Christopher

Rodr iguez, Appellant v. The State of Texas , Appellee FROM THE COUN TY COUR T AT LAW N O. 4 OF

TRAVI S COUNTY NO. 571-710, HO NORABLE MIKE DENTON, JUDGE PRESIDING PER CURIAM

Thi s i s an appea

l f rom a j udgme

nt of convi

ction f or assault. Sentence was

im posed on June 18, 2001. There was no mo t ion for new tria

l. The deadlin e for perfe cting a

ppeal was there f ore Jul y 18, 200 1. Tex . R. A

pp. P. 26 .2(a)(1 ). Notice of a ppe al was fil

ed o n Augu st 28, 200 1. On the s am e d ate , a m

oti on f or ex ten si ono f t i

me f or f i l i ng noti ceof ap pe al wa s f i l ed i n th e tri al cou rt. Th i s m oti on wasbot

h un t imely and f il ed i n the wrong court. T ex. R. App. P. 26.3. Under the c i rcumstances, we lack j urisd i cti on to di sp ose

of t he pu rp or t ed a ppe al in any man ne r oth er th an by di sm i ss i ng i t f or wa nt of jurisd ictio n. See Slato n v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex . Crim. App. 199 8); Olivo v. Sta te , 918 S.W.2d 51 9, 52 2- 23 ( T ex . Cr im. A pp . 19 96 ) . I f ap pe llant be lieve s t ha t he ha s be en un law fully deprived of hi

s right to appeal, he m

ay seek rel

ief by writ of habeas corpus.2 The appeal

is dis mi ssed. Be f ore J us ti ce s K i dd, Ye ak el

an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed f or W an t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: October 4, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
Document

Exhibit 10.1

                                        
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This First Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement entered into by and between Vertiv Corporation and Stephen Hen I Liang with effective date of January 1, 2022 ("Agreement") is made by and between Vertiv Corporation, an Ohio corporation with an office located at 1050 Dearborn Drive, Columbus, OH 43085 ("Vertiv") and Stephen Hen I Liang (“Liang”) and is effective as of August 5, 2022 (“Effective Date”).


Vertiv and Liang desire to amend the existing Agreement between them to account for certain changes to Liang’s base salary and title.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:


A.First paragraph of the preamble of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


“The letter confirms your employment with Vertiv Corporation as Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President, Infrastructure and Solutions. The terms and conditions of your employment relationship with Vertiv (Hong Kong) Holdings Limited are generally not addressed in this letter, except as otherwise noted.”


B.Section 2, first paragraph, of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


“Your base salary is USD $630,000 per annum, payable on 12 months basis, subject to applicable withholding as provided in Section 13.”


C.Except as herein modified or amended, the terms and conditions in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and are in full force and effect.  The Agreement, together with this Amendment, embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous written or oral communications or agreements between Vertiv and Liang, regarding the subject matter hereof.  The Agreement may only be amended by a signed, written agreement between Vertiv and Liang.


D.This Amendment may be executed in two counterparts each of which shall be an original and together which shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.


Vertiv Corporation                    Stephen Hen I Liang




By:    /s/ Rob Johnson                                             /s/ Stephen Hen I Liang    
Rob Johnson, Chief Executive Officer                     
1
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1601 

To ensure that certain communities may be granted exceptions for 

floodproofed residential basements for purposes of determining risk premium rates for flood insurance. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2013 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself and Ms. HEITKAMP) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To ensure that certain communities may be granted exceptions for floodproofed residential basements for purposes 

of determining risk premium rates for flood insurance. 

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 ‘‘Flood Safe Basements 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FLOODPROOFED RESIDENTIAL 

7 BASEMENTS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1601 IS

1 (1) for purposes of rating a floodproofed cov2 ered structure, the term ‘‘adjusted base flood ele3 vation’’ means the base flood elevation for a covered 

4 structure on the applicable effective flood insurance 

5 rate map, plus 1 foot; 

6 (2) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad7 ministrator of the Federal Emergency Management 

8 Agency; 

9 (3) the term ‘‘applicable flood plain manage10 ment measures’’ means flood plain management 

11 measures adopted by a community under section 

12 60.3(c) of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations; 

13 (4) the term ‘‘covered structure’’ means a resi14 dential structure— 

15 (A) that is located in a community that 

16 has adopted flood plain management measures 

17 that are approved by the Federal Emergency 

18 Management Agency and satisfy the require19 ments for an exception for floodproofed residen20 tial basements under section 60.6(c) of title 44, 

21 Code of Federal Regulations; and 

22 (B) that was built in compliance with the 

23 applicable flood plain management measures; 

24 (5) the term ‘‘floodproofed elevation’’ means the 

25 height of floodproofing on a structure, as identified 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1601 IS

1 on the Residential Basement Floodproofing Certifi2 cate for the structure; and 

3 (6) the term ‘‘National Flood Insurance Pro4 gram’’ means the program established under the Na5 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 

6 et seq.). 

7 (b) PRESERVATION OF BASEMENT EXCEPTION.— 

8 Notwithstanding the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Re9 form Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–141; 126 Stat. 916), 

10 the amendments made by that Act, or any other provision 

11 of law, the Administrator shall rate a covered structure 

12 using the elevation difference between the floodproofed ele13 vation of the covered structure and the adjusted base flood 

14 elevation of the covered structure. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VICTOR ADENIYI ALADEKOBA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CR-93-18, CA-00-1423-WMN)

Submitted: October 3, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Adeniyi Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Adeniyi Aladekoba seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Aladekoba, Nos. CR-93-18; CA00-1423-WMN (D. Md. Apr. 24, 2001). 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
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1847 

To provide for the redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17, 2013 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. SCHATZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and 

passed 

A BILL 

To provide for the redesignation of the Asia-Pacific Center 

for Security Studies as the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific 

Center for Security Studies. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC CEN4 TER FOR SECURITY STUDIES AS THE DANIEL 

5 K. INOUYE ASIA-PACIFIC CENTER FOR SECU6 RITY STUDIES. 

7 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Department of Defense 

8 regional center for security studies known as the Asia-Pa9 cific Center for Security Studies is hereby renamed the 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1847 CPS

1 ‘‘Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Stud2 ies’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

4 (1) REFERENCE TO REGIONAL CENTERS FOR

5 SECURITY STUDIES.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

6 184(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amend7 ed to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(B) The Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific 

9 Center for Security Studies.’’. 

10 (2) ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND DONATIONS.— 

11 Subparagraph (B) of section 2611(a)(2) of such title 

12 is amended to read as follows: 

13 ‘‘(B) The Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific 

14 Center for Security Studies.’’. 

15 (c) REFERENCES.—Any reference to the Department 

16 of Defense Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in any 

17 law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 

18 the United States shall be deemed to be a reference to 

19 the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

20 Studies. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Leon G. SCHACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. I-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Jan. 17, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1967.

Leon G. Schack, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and R. L. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SACK, Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. While incarcerated in the state prison at Raiford, Florida, he presented a complaint, addressed to Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, to a prison official and asked that it be forwarded by “certified mail — return receipt requested.” The official refused but advised the prisoner that he would give assurance that the document had been mailed. Appellant objected that this would not constitute positive proof of service and subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied.

Appellant contends that he has been prohibited from properly forwarding legal documents in compliance with Rule 4, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, in violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is well established that prisoners lawfully confined to state penitentiaries may be subjected to reasonable internal discipline concerning the use of the mails. Lee v. Tahash, 352 F.2d 970 (8th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Thompson v. Fay, 197 F.Supp. 855 (S.D.N.Y.1961). However, we do not reach the question of the reasonableness of the prison official’s action in this case.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the refusal to forward prisoner’s complaint by “certified mail- — return receipt requested” was improper, the writ was properly denied. A writ of habeas corpus cannot issue if the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release from his confinement. Ex parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1940); Warfield v. Raymond, 195 Md. 711, 71 A.2d 870 (1950).

*54Petitioner, appellant here, having failed to establish that he is being unlawfully confined, the order below is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.