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

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-20530 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez, 

Petitioner—Appellant, 

versus

United States Immigration Department, 

Respondent—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:21-CV-2537 

______________________________ 

Before Clement, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Ricardo Enriquez Sanchez, Texas prisoner # 1745089, moves for leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his motion filed 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The district court determined 

that Enriquez Sanchez had not shown his entitlement to relief under Rule 

60(b) insofar as he failed to point to any new evidence or intervening change 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 4, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-20530 Document: 00516738035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
No. 22-20530 

2 

in law, failed to show any mistake, misconduct, or other reason that would 

justify relief, and failed to dispute any particular finding or conclusion in the 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Enriquez Sanchez does not address the district court’s reasons for 

denying his Rule 60(b) motion and certifying that his appeal was not taken in 

good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The failure by Enriquez Sanchez to 

address the district court’s basis for dismissing his petition “without even 

the slightest identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis 

or its application to [his] suit . . ., is the same as if he had not appealed that 

judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 

748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is 

frivolous, the motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Enriquez Sanchez’s motion for appointment of counsel 

and motion for oral argument are also DENIED. 

This is Enriquez Sanchez’s second appeal that this court has 

dismissed as frivolous that entails challenges to his underlying conviction or 

immigration proceedings. He is WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive, 

or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may 

include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file 

pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See 

Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Case: 22-20530 Document: 00516738035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2023
# C_2012058EN.01000101.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/1

---

2012/C 58/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 39, 11.2.2012

OJ C 32, 4.2.2012

OJ C 25, 28.1.2012

OJ C 13, 14.1.2012

OJ C 6, 7.1.2012

OJ C 370, 17.12.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3510

To eliminate segregationist language from the Second Morrill Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Mr. WASHINGTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To eliminate segregationist language from the Second Morrill

Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF SEGREGATIONIST LANGUAGE

4 IN SECOND MORRILL ACT.

5 (a) FIRST SECTION.—The first section of the Act of

6 August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 322, 323) (commonly known

7 as the Second Morrill Act), is amended by striking the

8 two provisos and inserting the following: ‘‘Provided, That

9 if any State or Territory has more than one college which

10 is entitled to receive funds under this Act or the Act of

11 July 2, 1862, then no funds shall be paid out under this
2

•HR 3510 IH

1 Act or the Act of July 2, 1862, to such State or Territory

2 unless the funds to be paid out are equitably divided

3 among such colleges, as proposed by the legislature of such

4 State or Territory and approved by the Secretary of Agri5 culture.’’.

6 (b) SECOND SECTION.—Section 2 of that Act (7

7 U.S.C. 324) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘, or the institution for colored

9 students’’, and

10 (2) by striking ‘‘or other institutions’’.

11 (c) THIRD SECTION.—Section 3 of that Act (7 U.S.C.

12 325) is amended by striking ‘‘, or of institutions for col13 ored students’’.

14 (d) FOURTH SECTION.—Section 4 of that Act (7

15 U.S.C. 326) is amended by striking ‘‘, or of institutions

16 for colored students,’’.

17 (e) EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS.—

18 (1) ELIGIBILITY OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

19 AND INSTITUTIONS.—The amendments made by sec20 tion 1 shall not affect the eligibility of any land21 grant college or institution to receive funds under

22 the Act of July 2, 1862 (7 U.S.C. 301–305, 307 and

23 308) (commonly known as the First Morrill Act),

24 the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321–326,

25 328), or any other law.
3

•HR 3510 IH

1 (2) LAND-GRANT COLLEGE OR INSTITUTION

2 DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the

3 term ‘‘land-grant college or institution’’ means an

4 educational institution (including Tuskegee Insti5 tute) which, on the day before the date of the enact6 ment of this Act, was eligible to receive funds under

7 the Act of July 2, 1862, or the Act of August 30,

8 1890.

Æ
#### Hiram Watson MORRIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1340.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 12, 1968.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
258 La. 968

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Sam GROSS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51491.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 16, 1971.

In re: Sam Gross applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and ha-beas corpus.

Application denied. Considering the application and the evidence taken at the hearing below, we are of the opinion that the showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 and my dissention State ex rel. Thompson v. Henderson, 258 La. 548, 246 So.2d 859.
#### Albert JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 8, 1973.

Albert Jackson, in pro. per.

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

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 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 his appeal, and the appellant having filed a memorandum brief in support of his position, and on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment is hereby affirmed.
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Disposition of Comments QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F2 Date: June 13, 2008 Revision 1 Page 1 of 1 

## Comments In Response to FAA Final Rule; Request for Comments Docket: FAA-200~- IOZh Directorate Identifier ~-NM- 

### JCI'1-AD Comments have been received inresponse to: "Filial rule; requestfor commellts," Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. (Project ellgineer: Please review any comments todetermine ifadditional action iswarranted. Onceyou have made your determination, pleasefill in the commellter(s) name(s) and check the appropriate response below. Include additional ill formation following the appropriate response, ifnecessary. Then type illyour lIame alld date inthe spacesprovided, and return itto: James C. JOIIIISOII,

ANM-II4.) The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received trom:

__ 8_DC.l~'~



## Ccmfl-"'f------------- (Please check olle.) 

# 1-These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration orrevision ofthis AD. These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of



### --- additional regulatory action. 

### (SEEAirworthiness DirectivesManual FAA-IR-M-8040.IA, paragraph 21.d., FORADDITIONAL ACTION.) 

## 1/4- It-DID 

# , Date: (This form is part ofthe official docket file for this AD action.) UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master list to Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50544

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cecilio Torres-Ibarra, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CR-239-1

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cecilio Torres-Ibarra appeals his conviction for illegal reentry and his 

sentence of 18 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. 

He argues, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence exceeds the statutory 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 10, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50544 Document: 00516502083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2022
No. 22-50544

2

maximum because the enhanced penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are 

unconstitutional. 

He has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition and a 

letter brief correctly conceding that this issue is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See United States v. Pervis, 937 

F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Torres-Ibarra states that he raised the issue 

only to preserve it for possible further review. Because summary disposition 

is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th 

Cir. 1969), Torres-Ibarra’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-50544 Document: 00516502083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2022
# C_2015308EN.01000602.xml

| 18.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/6

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2015/C 308/10)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 1.1.2015 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 1.1-31.12.2015 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | RNG/8X14- |
| Species | Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 30/DSS |

Date and time of closure

1.1.2015

Duration

1.1-31.12.2015

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

RNG/8X14-

Species

Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris)

Coryphaenoides rupestris

Zone

Union and international waters of VIII, IX, X, XII and XIV

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

30/DSS

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
#### Vincent Joseph MARTIRE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42025.

Supreme-Court of Florida.

July 25, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 254 So.2d 868.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows and
Statement of Changes in Shareholders' Equity and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000028385
<NAME> The Detroit Edison Company
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      570
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   885
<PP&E>                                           11629
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   10987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1262
<BONDS>                                           3462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1951
<OTHER-SE>                                        1562
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     10987
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    678
<INCOME-TAX>                                       260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Nancy Romero et al., Respondents, v Mitchelltown Apts., Inc., Appellant, and Glenn French et al., Respondents.

[722 NYS2d 183]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Mitchelltown Apts., Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 6, 2000, as denied its motion to transfer venue of this action from Queens County to Nassau County pursuant to CPLR 510 (3).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to change the venue of the action from Queens County to Nassau County based upon “the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice” (CPLR 510 [3]). The appellant failed to disclose the nature and materiality of the anticipated testimony of the proposed nonparty-witnesses *(see, O’Brien v Vassar Bros. Hosp.,*207 AD2d 169, 172) and demonstrate that these witnesses would be inconvenienced if the venue were not changed *(see, Cruz v City of New York,*251 AD2d 364; *Mallory v Long Is. R. R.,*245 AD2d 493; *Murphy v Long Is. R. R.,*239 AD2d 472). Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7273.

#### Lawson *v.*Elo, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### Edward H. COOK et al. v. STATE.

No. 36777.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 201 So.2d 769.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C SECTION1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form10-Q of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Feize Zhang, Principal Executive 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:

 

a) The report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b) The information contained in the report fairlypresents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: August 19, 2013

 

CHINA SHOUGUAN MINING CORPORATION , Registrant

 

/s/ Feize Zhang

By: Feize Zhang, Principal Executive Officer
#### Ivy H. EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 30, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2282

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2005 

Filed: June 17, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donaciano Rodriguez-Mercado (Rodriguez) appeals the sentence the district

court1

 imposed following his guilty plea to illegally reentering the United States after

having been convicted of an aggravated felony and deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Rodriguez’s counsel initially moved to withdraw and filed a

brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In two subsequently filed

supplemental briefs, counsel argues (1) Rodriguez’s sentence violates the Sixth

Amendment, in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the
-2-

district court made findings regarding the existence and nature of his prior conviction,

thereby enhancing his sentence; and (2) Shepard v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1254

(2005), implicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-

27 (1998).

Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment argument was not raised below, and there is no

plain error, because Booker does not require a jury to find the fact of a prior

conviction. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 756; cf. United States v. Marcussen, 403 F.3d

982, 984 (8th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that nature of prior conviction is to be

treated differently from fact of prior conviction; once sentencing court determines

prior conviction exists, it is legal question for court whether crime meets “crime of

violence” definition of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2). Also, we recently held Booker and

Shepard did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Patterson, No. 04-

1178, 2005 WL 1123555, at *2 (8th Cir. May 13, 2005).

In the Anders brief, counsel raises as issues (1) whether the district court

afforded Rodriguez an opportunity to dismiss appointed counsel and retain new

counsel, and (2) whether the court properly conducted the plea and sentencing

hearings. These arguments fail. First, the motion transcript shows that the court gave

Rodriguez the opportunity to hire new counsel. Second, any omissions in the plea

colloquy did not affect Rodriguez’s substantial rights. See United States v.

Dominguez Benitez, 124 S. Ct. 2333, 2340 (2004); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S.

55, 58-59 (2002). 

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Thus, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm. 

______________________________
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00651

- CV

Lawrence Brandon Erlanson, Individually, and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Freddie Lindsay Erlanson , Appellant

v.

Teresa Erlanson , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LA W NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY NO. 2021PC0278 , THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. STEPHENS II , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM
Lawrence Brandon Erlanson, Individually, and as Independent Executor of the
Estate of Freddie Lindsay Erlanson
, has filed an u nopposed motion to abate this appeal while the
parties fin aliz e a settlement reached through mediation. W e grant the motion and abate thi s
appeal

. On or before December 1 9 , 202 2, the parties shal l submit either a motion to dismiss , a
join t status report concer n ing the status of settlement negotiations, or a mo tion to reinstate. This
appeal will remain abated until further other of this Cou r t.

Before Chief Justice By rne, Justices Triana and Smith

Abated

Filed: November 18, 2022
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.
                      SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                       STATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------                                       ----------------------

InSight Health Corp.                                     Delaware
    Mississippi Mobile Technology, Inc.                  Mississippi
    Radiosurgery Centers, Inc.                           Delaware
Maxum Health Corp.                                       Delaware
    Quest Financial Services, Inc.                       Delaware
    Maxum Health Services Corp.                          Delaware
         Diagnostic Solutions Corp.                      Delaware
         Maxum Health Services of North Texas, Inc.      Texas
         Maxum Health Services of Arlington, Inc.        Texas
         Maxum Health Services of Dallas, Inc.           Texas
         MTS Enterprises, Inc.                           Texas
         NDDC, Inc.                                      Texas
Open MRI, Inc.                                           Delaware
Radiology Services Corp.                                 Delaware
Signal Medical Services, Inc.                            Delaware
254 La. 801

#### CUB BEVERAGE COMPANY, Inc. v. TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 50042.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Cub Beverage Company, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 223 So.2d 893.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.