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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50048

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ROBERT GALICIA-PENA, also

known as Jose Roberto Galicia-Pena,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-721-1

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Robert Galicia-Pena (“Galicia”) appeals following his

conviction in a bench trial for illegal reentry after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Galicia argues

that the district court committed reversible plain error by

increasing the maximum authorized Guidelines sentence based on

facts neither admitted nor found by a jury, and by imposing a

sentence under a mandatory Guidelines scheme. Galicia correctly

concedes that he cannot carry his burden of showing that the
No. 05-50048

-2-

district court’s error affected his substantial rights. See

United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th

Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No.

05-5556); United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.

2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517).

Galicia also argues that because his indictment did not

allege a prior felony conviction, he was subject to a maximum

sentence of two years under U.S.C. § 1326(a). He correctly

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

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.
Exhibit 31.2    CERTIFICATION   I, John E. Mack, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International Power Group, Ltd.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  November 20, 2006    /s/ John E. MackJohn E. Mack(Chief Financial Officer)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LEE W I LLI A M S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73374 A ge nc yN o. A 200- 950- 969 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L e e W i l l i a m s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of B arba dos , pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . O ur 

# FI LED DE C 28 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 11- 73374

j u r i s d i c t i o n i s g o v e rn e db y8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e la c kju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rW illia m s ’ c o n te n tio n s r e g ar d in g h is e l i gi bi l i tyf

ora dj us tm e ntof

s t a tus ba s e d on hi s r e s i de nc e i n the U ni t e d S t a t e s and engagem entt o a U . S . ci t i ze n, hi s c ri m i nal conv i ct i on , and the deni alof a c ont i nuanc e w hi l e W i l l i a m s tr i e d t o va c a t e hi s c onvi c t i on be c aus e he di d not e x h au s t th e m . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( th is courtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew cont ent i on s notra i se d b ef ore the B IA ). W i l l i a m s doe s notr a i s e , and the r e f or e w a i ve s , anyothe rc ha l l e nge s t o the B I A ’s o r d e r . Se e M

a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D.
#### Vicki MOON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Fred C. SCHWENDIMAN, in his official capacity, as Director of the Office of Driver License Services of the State of Utah, and the Office of Driver License Services of the State of Utah, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 860080-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Aug. 10, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1987.

*823Walter F. Bugden, Jr., Bugden, Collins & Keller, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, State Atty. Gen., Bruce Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants and respondents.

Before GREENWOOD, BENCH and GARFF, JJ.

OPINION

GREENWOOD, Judge:

Vicki G. Moon appeals the suspension of her driver’s license and the district court’s affirmance of the suspension. Appellant’s request to have her license reinstated pending this appeal was denied and her license was suspended for ninety days. Appellant seeks reversal of the ninety day suspension of her license.

Preliminarily we must determine whether mootness precludes deciding the issues raised by appellant in this case. In several recent Utah cases, this Court and the Utah Supreme Court have discussed the issue of mootness in the context of driver license

suspensions. *Gabbard v. Beach,*736 P.2d 1047 (Utah App.1987); *Kehl v. Schwendiman,*735 P.2d 413 (Utah App.1987); *Jones v. Schwendiman,*721 P.2d 893 (Utah 1986); *Cullimore v. Schwendiman,*652 P.2d 915 (Utah 1982).

In *Cullimore*and *Jones,*the Utah Supreme Court refrained from determining the legality of license revocations because the revocation periods had expired by their own terms. However, in *Kehl*this Court accepted jurisdiction in an appeal initiated by the Department of Public Safety stating “this case presents an issue that affects the public interest, is likely to recur, and because of the brief time anyone is affected is capable of evading review.” *Kehl,*735 P.2d at 416. This Court then examined and opined on the issues raised. Subsequently, in *Gabbard v. Beach,*736 P.2d at 1031, this Court dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from the ninety day suspension of a driver’s license because the suspension order had expired.

In this case, appellant’s license suspension has expired by its own terms and the requested judicial relief cannot affect appellant’s rights. Furthermore, this case does not present issues which persuade us to accept jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed on grounds of mootness.

BENCH and GARFF, JJ., concur.
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50254

Summary Calendar

IJOMA I. EGEOLU, DR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CV-773)

December 23, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dr. Ijoma Egeolu appea ls an adverse judgment after a bench trial in his

Title VII discrimination action against the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Having reviewed the rec ord, briefs of the parties, and controlling precedents,

and finding neither error of fact nor law in the disposition of this matter by the

trial court, and on the facts as found, conclusions of law, and authorities cited

by the district court in its very thorough Findings of Fact and Conclusions of2

Law signed and entered on March 13, 1997, and filed on March 14, 1997, the

judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1421 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1421

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
  To amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
          importation and shipment of certain species of carp.

    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 ``Asian Carp Prevention and Control 
Act''.
SEC. 2. ADDITION OF SPECIES OF CARP TO THE LIST OF INJURIOUS SPECIES 
THAT ARE PROHIBITED FROM BEING IMPORTED OR SHIPPED.
    Section 42(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``of the bighead carp of the species Hypophthalmichthys 
nobilis;'' after ``Dreissena polymorpha;''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF TRANSPRO, INC.

         The following sets forth a list of all the subsidiaries of TransPro,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and the State or other
jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    NAME                                       JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR
                                                                                         ORGANIZATION
<S>                                                                            <C>
            Allen Heat Transfer Products, Inc.                                             Delaware
            AHTP II, Inc.                                                                  Delaware
            Crown Crew Cab, Inc.                                                           Delaware
            GO/DAN Industries (1)                                                          New York
            GO/DAN de Mexico, SA de C.V. (2)                                                Mexico
            Radiadores GDI, SA de C.V. (2)                                                  Mexico
            TransPro Indus Ltd.                                                            Mauritius
            Crown-VMS Canada, Ltd.                                                      Ontario, Canada
</TABLE>
            -------------

(1)      GO/DAN Industries, a New York general partnership, is jointly owned by
         Allen Heat Transfer Products Inc. and AHTP II, Inc.

(2)      A wholly-owned subsidiary of GO/DAN Industries.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fresh Harvest Products, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Jordan Friedman, Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



Dated: March 22, 2010

| | FRESH HARVEST PRODUCTS, INC.                                                                                                                   | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Michael Jordan Friedman                                                                                                                    | 
| | Michael Jordan Freidman
Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial/Accounting Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,928
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         182,775
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                41,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,374
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          23,289
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,980
<LOANS>                                        151,100
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 262,602
<DEPOSITS>                                     237,892
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,418
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,088
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 262,602
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,226
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,483
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,575
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,449
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,126
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      385
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (18)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,608
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,608
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,401
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     056
<LOANS-NON>                                        846
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,202
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,911
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      328
<RECOVERIES>                                        84
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,053
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,053
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
STYLE

v.

RE: Case No. 15-0196

COA #: 12-13-00035-CV

CYNTHIA KAY LYLES

AARON JORDAN, ET AL.

fILed'in court of appeals Is 19th Court of Appeals District

FILE COPY

DATE: 4/14/2015

TC#: 2011-115

Today the Supreme Court of Texas granted the second

motion for extension of time to file petition for review

under Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f) in the above-referenced case.

The petition for review is due to be filed no later than

April 29, 2015. Further requests for extensions of time for

this filing will be disfavored.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354

TYLER, TX 75702
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JASON NDREMIZARA , Plaintiff,

v. TOWERS WATSON (TOWERS WATSON DELAWARE, INC., TOWERS WATSON PENNSYLVANIA, INC.) , Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 12
- 1507 (RCL)

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jason Ndremizara, appearing pro se , alleges that d efendant Towers Watson discriminated against him on the basis of race and age by failing to hire him for an actuarial position with the company. Towers Watson has moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) , or in the alternative, for a more definite statement

. For the reasons given below, the Court will GRANT the motion to dismiss.
A mo tion to dismiss is appropriate when the complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such a failure occurs when the complaint is so factually deficient that the plaintiff's claim for relief is not plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Though facts in a complaint need not be detailed, Rule 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the

- defendant

- harmed

- me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Igbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must accept all factual statements as true when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Id. at 678. However, conclusory legal allegations2 devoid of any factual support do not enjoy the same presumption of truth. Id. at 679. “Factual allegati ons must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than f ormal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, a pro

se plaintiff's complaint “must present a claim on which the Court can grant relief.” Utterback v. Geithner , 754 F.Supp.2d 52, 54 (D.D.C .2010) (quoting Chandler v. Roche , 215 F.Supp.2d 166, 168 (D.D.C.2002)). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to est ablish his discrimination claim, and relies instead only on conslusory, uncorroborated statements. Plaintiff alle ges no facts to suggest that Towers Watson knew his age or race when rejecting his application. Further, this complaint is one of nine nearly

- identical complaints, with only the defendant’s name changed, filed by Ndremizara against other companies that have failed to hire him. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss 2

– 3. Taking judicial notice of these cases, this Court notes especially the order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Ndremizara v. Hanover Insurance Company , No. 4:1 2

- CV

- 40109 (D. Mass., May 31 , 2013), which notes t he same deficiencies in Ndremizara’s complaint

. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this date. Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge, on August 21 , 201 3

.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-87658) pertaining to the ValuJet Airlines, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock
Option Plan and the ValuJet Airlines, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91624) pertaining to the ValuJet
Airlines, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-33887) pertaining to the ValuJet, Inc. 1994 Employee Stock
Trust, in the Registration statement (Form S-8 No. 33-98566) pertaining to the
Airways Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan and 1995 Director Stock Option Plan
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-83048) of ValuJet Airlines,
Inc. of our report dated February 13, 1998, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of AirTran Holdings, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1998