alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50942 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISMAEL CHAVEZ-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-676-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Chavez-Romero appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Chavez-Romero complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Alternatively, Chavez-Romero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)No. 02-50942 -2- and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) offense that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Chavez-Romero acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Order entered July 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00123-CV

BRINSON BENEFITS, INC., Appellant

V.

LINDA HOOPER, SEAN SENDELBACH AND HOLMES MURPHY & ASSOCIATES,

INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07520

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2015 letter, attached to this order, informing the 

Court that certain exhibits contained in volume 20 of the reporter’s record were ordered sealed 

by the trial court, yet the reporter filed them unsealed. Appellant requests to have those exhibits 

removed from the record and access to them restricted. We construe the letter as a motion and 

GRANT the motion to the extent we STRIKE volume 20 of the reporter’s record and ORDER

court reporter David W. Langford to refile volume 20 with the unsealed exhibits only. We 

further ORDER Mr. Langford to file, under seal, volume 21 with the exhibits identified in the 

attached letter. The record of the exhibits shall be filed no later than August 10, 2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11489-11490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4490]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-863]


Honey From the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time 
Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

DATES: Effective Date: February 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Bertrand, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3207.

Background

    On January 3, 2012, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published the notice preliminarily rescinding the antidumping duty 
administrative review on honey from the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''), covering the period December 12, 2009, through November 30, 
2010. See Honey From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Rescission of the Administrative Review, 77 FR 79 (January 3, 2012). 
The final results are currently due on May 2, 2012.

Extension of Time Limits for Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``Act''), requires the Department to issue the final results in an 
administrative review of an antidumping duty order 120 days after the 
date on which the preliminary results are published. The Department 
may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the final results 
of an administrative review to 180 days if it determines it is not 
practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. 
See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
    The Department requires additional time to complete this review 
because the Department must fully analyze and consider significant 
issues regarding whether the respondent's sales were bona fide. 
Further, the Department extended the due date for submission of the 
rebuttal comments to the case briefs

[[Page 11490]]

at the request of an interested party. Thus, it is not practicable to 
complete this review within the time specified under the Act. 
Therefore, we are extending the time for the completion of the final 
results of this review by 40 days to June 11, 2012.
    This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 
777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-4490 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Daniel W. DIEFENDERFER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 87-151.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Nov. 19, 1987.

*557Fredric B. Butler, Eagle, Colo., for appellant.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Karen A. Byrne, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.

CARDINE, Justice.

Appellant Daniel W. Diefenderfer pled guilty to third-degree sexual assault following a reduction of charge plea agreement. He was sentenced to three to five years with all but a jail term of 11 months and five days suspended and was placed on four years probation. His jail sentence has been served. He was discharged from probation February 18, 1987. Thereafter, on March 2,1987, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief asking that the court vacate the judgment and sentence he had already completed. The court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, and appellant now appeals.

We affirm.

The bringing of a proceeding for post-conviction relief in Wyoming is governed by §§ 7-14-101 through 7-14-108, W.S. 1977. Section 7-14-101, W.S.1977, provided at the time appellant filed his petition:

> “Any person imprisoned in the penitentiary who asserts that in the proceedings which resulted in his conviction there was a substantial denial of his rights under the constitution of the United States or of the state of Wyoming, or both, may institute proceedings under this act [§§ 7-14-101 to 7-14-108].” Section 7-14-101, supra, affords the rem-

edy of post-conviction relief to persons *imprisoned in the penitentiary.*Appellant was not imprisoned in the penitentiary at the time of filing his petition nor was he in constructive custody of the state of Wyoming, he having been discharged from probation. The district court, therefore, was without jurisdiction under the post-conviction relief statute to entertain or decide appellant’s petition.

For jurisdiction to exist, the court must have authority to accept the proceeding and the power to render a particular judgment. *Padlock Ranch Inc. v. Washakie Needles Irrigation District,*50 Wyo. 253, 61 P.2d 410 (1936). “ ‘Jurisdiction’ is the power to hear and determine the matter in controversy between the parties.” *McGuire v. McGuire,*Wyo., 608 P.2d 1278, 1290 (1980). The jurisdiction of a court is found in the law. It is invoked by the bringing of a suit according to judicial procedure, meeting applicable statutory requirements. 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 336 (1981).

Appellant did not meet the statutory requirement that the petition for post-conviction relief be by a person imprisoned in the penitentiary. The district court was without jurisdiction to decide the matters presented in appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief. The order of the district court dismissing the petition is, therefore,

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1976-1977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

January 9, 2012.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following 
information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, on or after the date of 
publication of this notice.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before February 13, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other 
aspect of the information collection, including suggestion for reducing 
the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New 
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c03051e0d131f392e21253f3f2523220c03010e6209031c620b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d52544f5c424e687f70746e6e7472735d52505f3358524d335a524b">[email protected]</span></a> and (2) Treasury PRA Clearance Officer, 
1750 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite

[[Page 1977]]

11020, Washington, DC 20220, or on-line at www.PRAComment.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling (202) 927-5331, email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80d0d2c1c0f4f2e5e1f3f5f2f9aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d2d2f3c3d090f181c0e080f04531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>, or the 
entire information collection request maybe found at www.reginfo.gov.

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund

    OMB Number: 1559-0005.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Bank Enterprise Award Program Application.
    Form: CDFI 0002.
    Abstract: The BEA Program provides incentives to insured depository 
institutions to increase their support of CDFIs and their activities in 
economically distressed communities.
    Affected Public: Private Sector: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,125.

Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-466 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-70-P


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

I, Christopher Paterson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of Wolf Resources, Inc for the fiscal quarter ended April
30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual
Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Wolf Resources, Inc.

Date: June 12, 2008


/s/ Christopher Paterson
--------------------------------------
Christopher Paterson
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial Officer)
Order entered August 31 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01021

- CV

IN RE TEGAN ELIZABETH MANN , Relator

Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 05

- 0 3856

- Y



### O RDER Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40173

Summary Calendar

 

BOYCE LEE GOWAN, II,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT; KENNY, Officer;

MATA, Sergeant; MOORE, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-622

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Boyce Lee Gowan, II, Texas prisoner # 508559, appeals the

district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint as frivolous. Gowan contends that the defendants

violated his right to practice his religion when they ordered him

to clean his living area even though it was a high holy day.

A 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissal is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.
1997). Restrictions on the practice of religious beliefs must be

"reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." 

Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1992) (footnote

omitted). The following factors are relevant in determining

whether a prison regulation infringes on an inmate’s

constitutional rights: “(1) is there a valid, rational

correlation between the prison regulation and the legitimate

governmental interest advanced; (2) are there alternative means

of exercising the rights that remain available to the inmates;

and (3) what is the impact of an accommodation in favor of the

inmate on prison staff, other inmates, and the allocation of

prison resources generally.” Muhammad, 966 F.2d at 902 (quoting

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90 (1987)).

The magistrate judge determined that Gowan was responsible

for the mess in his cell, but Gowan steadfastly maintained that

Officer Kenny made the mess. Although Gowan’s summary of the

grievances suggest that Officer Kenny acted pursuant to “AD

3.72,” neither the grievances nor a copy of “AD 3.72" are in the

record, and Gowan denies that he was not in compliance and that

Officer Kenny was acting pursuant to “AD 3.72.” We are persuaded

that at this stage of the proceedings, the record is inadequate

to determine why Officer Kenny entered Gowan’s area when she did,

whether Officer Kenny was acting pursuant to a prison regulation,

and whether an accommodation could have been made. Siglar v.

Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). After additional

factual development, dismissal may be appropriate but at this 

time it is premature. Accordingly, we VACATE the district

court's judgment dismissing the suit as frivolous and REMAND the

case for further proceedings.
No. 98-40173

-3-

VACATED AND REMANDED.
# Delegation of Certain Function Under Section 308(a) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the function to provide to the Congress the information specified in section 308(a) of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-87). 

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                     

[FR Doc. 2012-4598

Billing code 4710-10-P
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0999 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM049AD

MESSIER- DOW TY

D23581 - 32 - 051, R2 --- 3/27/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-13-0000703 

24-JUN-2014 

08:03 AM 

SCWC-13-0000703
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

GENE WONG,


Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
 

vs.
 

HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC.,


Respondent/Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-13-0000703; CIV. NO. 11-1-2459)
 

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court 

of Appeals at the time the application for certiorari was filed, 

see Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also 

Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for
 

writ of certiorari, filed June 19, 2014, is dismissed without
 

prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule
 

40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty
 

days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ 

judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing 

the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”). 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 24, 2014. 

R. Steven Geshell 

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
 

2
#### Rudolph Wurlitzer Co., Plaintiff, *v.*Patrick Ferris, Doing Business as Ferris Tavern, Defendant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

March 9, 1959.

*Leonard E. Friedlander*and *Leslie F. Couch*for defendant.

*Dorsman & Coffer (Abraham B. Dorsman*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*651Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The new rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, adopted by the four Presiding Justices of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Judicial Departments, and effective March 1, 1959, states (subd. 2) that “A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions, written admissions, etc.” Said rule 113 continues, “ The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the action or claim or defense shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment, interlocutory or final, in favor of any party.”

The affidavit of the defendant herein avers that the 6 ‘ buyer ’ ’ under the conditional sales contract, was a resident of the City of Troy, and that no conditional sales contract was filed in said County of Rensselaer. Said defendant’s affidavit further alleges purchase of the chattel in good faith and wrongful replevin, both of which are conclusions of law unsupported by facts in the affidavit or documentary proof.

It is apparent from the moving affidavit that there are distinct questions of fact which must be resolved in a trial and which should not be accepted as conclusions without supporting documentation or proof. One of the crucial points in this lawsuit revolves around the actual residence of one Harry Collegian at the time of the execution of the contract, and it will be necessary at the trial to produce proof of facts concerning this disputed question of residence.

Since there are questions of fact outstanding and to be determined which can only be properly resolved upon a trial, the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint and reply herein, and a summary judgment, is denied.

The Schenectady County Court will commence a Jury Term on March 16, 1959 at which time each party will have an opportunity to have his “ day in court.”

Submit order accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1368 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1368

  To amend title 35, United States Code, to create an exception from 
  infringement of design patents for certain component parts used to 
                 repair another article of manufacture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2009

Mr. Whitehouse introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 35, United States Code, to create an exception from 
  infringement of design patents for certain component parts used to 
                 repair another article of manufacture.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Access to Repair Parts Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FROM INFRINGEMENT FOR CERTAIN COMPONENT PARTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 271 of title 35, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) It shall not be an act of infringement of any design patent 
to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import 
into the United States any article of manufacture that itself 
constitutes a component part of another article of manufacture, if the 
sole purpose of the component part is for the repair of the article of 
manufacture of which it is a part so as to restore its original 
appearance.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies to 
acts done on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```