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

No. 14

- 20206 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JUAN BAUTISTA GARCIA

- ZELAYA, also known as Jose Garcia, also known as Juan B. Garcia, also known as Juan Bautista Garcia Zelaya , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 569

- 1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Bautista Garcia

- Zelaya raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Morales

Mota , 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013 ). In Morales

- Mota , 704 F.3d at 412, we rejected the argument that the Texas offense of “burglary of a habitation” is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling”

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 2 1 , 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20206 Document: 00513012788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015No. 14

- 20206

under U.S.S.G . § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person with a “greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” Accordingly, the unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district c ourt is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-20206 Document: 00513012788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-07-002 

Relating to Approval of the State Strategy for California's State I mplementation Plan 

(SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards 

WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project 

which may have significant adverse environmental impacts may be adopted as 

originally proposed if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to 

reduce or eliminate such impacts, unless specific overriding considerations are 

identified which outweigh the potential adverse consequences of any unmitigated 

impacts; 

WHEREAS, Board regulations provide that prior to taking final action on any proposal 

for which significant environmental issues have been raised, the decision maker shall 

approve a written response to each such issue; 

WHEREAS, on September 27, 2007, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) 

conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the State Strategy for California's 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards a 

as a revision to the California SIP for; the proposed SIP revision is set forth in 

Attachment 1 to this Executive Order; 

WHEREAS, following the public hearing on September 27, 2007, the Board adopted 

Resolution 07-28, in which the Board initiated steps toward the final adoption of the 

proposed SIP revision; 

WHEREAS, 'Resolution 07-28 also directed the Executive Officer to prepare and 

approve written responses to all significant environmental issues that have been raised, 

and then to either: (1) return the proposed SIP revision to the Board for further 

consideration if he determines that this is warranted, or (2) take final action to approve 

the SIP revision with such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the issues 

raised, including appropriate modifrcations to insure that all feasibie mitigation measures 

or feasible alternatives that would substantially reduce any significant adverse 

environmental impacts have been incorporated into the final action; 

WHEREAS, no written or oral comments raising environmental issues were received 

during the comment period for the proposed SIP revision; 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings.contained in 

Resolution 07-28 are incorporated by reference herein, including the findings pursuant 

to the California Environmental Quality Act that are set forth on pages 4 and 5 of 

Resolution 07-28. 
-2- 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed SIP revision, as set forth in Attachment 1 

hereto, is hereby adopted. 

(T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the SIP revision shall be submitted to U.S. EPA for 

inclusion .in the SIP to be effective, for purposes of federal law, upon approval by 

U.S. EPA. 

Executed this day of ~ , 2007, at Sacramento, Cafifornia. 

~ 

9 

es N. Goldstene 

:utive Officer 

Attachments
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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; and





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


/s/
                Anthony C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                      C. Pintsopoulos
                    Principal
                      Financial Officer
                    May
                      12, 2006
##### 



EXHIBIT (32.2)
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 PeopleSupport, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Caroline Rook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Caroline RookCaroline RookChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 April 29, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 47 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 47

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2000

 Mr. Smith of New Hampshire introduced the following joint resolution; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
        402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress does not approve 
the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade 
Act of 1974 recommended by the President to Congress on June 2, 2000, 
with respect to Vietnam.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00062

- CV

In the Interest of K.N., a Child §

§

§

§ From the 323rd District Court

o f Tarrant County (323

- 94280 J

- 11 )

June 27, 2013

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the r ecord on appeal in this case and holds that

there wa s no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ C hief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### STATE ex rel. Kenneth PEARSON v. Hon. Matthew BRANIFF, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 88-KH-1082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Pearson, Kenneth; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88KW-0554; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 294-983.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
#### Kenneth B. BRADSHAW, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 87-634.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 13, 1987.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is before the court upon a petition for writ of habeas corpus for belated appellate review. *State v. Meyer,*430 So.2d 440 (Fla.1983). We grant the writ and appoint the public defender who filed the petition to represent petitioner in his appeal.

Petitioner was convicted of three different crimes and his trial counsel filed three notices of appeal, all of which appeals were dismissed for failure to file briefs in the cases. This nonfeasance is sufficient to warrant relief under *Johnson v. Wainwright,*463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). It is also grounds for investigation by The Florida Bar and petitioner’s counsel is directed to report this matter to the appropriate Bar grievance counsel.

Writ granted.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 99.2(B)
                                 TO FORM 10-K OF
                           SEA PINES ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Sea
Pines Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
October 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  January 17, 2003                     /s/ Steven P. Birdwell
                                             ----------------------
                                             Steven P. Birdwell
                                             Chief Financial Officer

         This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed (filed) by the Company
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Alfredo MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1988.

*342James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Alfredo Mitchell, challenges the judgment and sentence entered after he was convicted of robbery. Although several issues have been raised on appeal, we find merit only in the appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in departing from the sentencing guidelines. We, accordingly, affirm his conviction but reverse the departure sentence imposed and remand for resentencing within the guidelines.

The appellant was charged by information with robbery in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1985). After a jury found the appellant guilty as charged, the trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison. The guidelines sentencing range was three and one-half to four and one-half years imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.

The trial court’s written reasons for departure indicate that the appellant had been convicted of crimes of aggravated assault and retail theft which had been committed approximately one week subsequent to the crime in this case. The trial court went on to say that these crimes were similar and show a pattern of escalating criminal behavior. Timing of the offense, *see Franks v. State,*502 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), as well as an escalating course of criminal conduct, *see Keys v. State,*500 So.2d 134 (Fla.1986), certainly may be used to support a departure sentence when the appellant is sentenced for the subsequent crimes. Here, however, the appellant committed the robbery before his criminal conduct had “escalated.” Since the appellant’s robbery was not the basis for the trial court's finding, escalating criminal conduct is not supported by the record and, therefore, cannot justify a departure sentence. *See State v. Mischler,*488 So.2d 523 (Fla.1986).

Also included in the reasons for departure was the fact that the victim was a woman who was working alone at the time of the robbery and that she quit work after the crime because she did not want to get “hit” again as she had two children who were dependent upon her for support. These reasons are invalid. *See Mathis v. State,*515 So.2d 214 (Fla.1987); *Early v. State,*516 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

Because we find all of the reasons for departure to be invalid, we remand for sentencing within the guidelines. *See Shull v. Dugger,*515 So.2d 748 (Fla.1987). We affirm the trial court in all other respects.

*343Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John M. WARRICK.

No. 87-KH-0194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 26, 1987.

In re Warrick, John M.; applying for remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, Nos. 307-746, 311-030, 310-399, 307-854.

Denied. Relator’s motion is pending in the district court.
Exhibit 3.10
 Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation
  1.
    
    Frederick F. Wolfe and Madelaine Morrow presently serve as President and Secretary,
respectively, of ALA DESIGN, INC. (the Corporation), a California corporation.2.
    
    Article II of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is amended to read
as follows:
    3.
    
    The foregoing amendments of the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation has
been duly approved by the board of directors.4.
    
    That said amendments were duly adopted by the sole stockholder of the Corporation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 902 of the California Corporation Code. The
total number of outstanding shares of the Corporation is one hundred (100). The number of
 shares voting in favor of the amendments equaled or exceeded the vote required. The
percentage vote required was more than 50%.We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the matters set forth in this certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.
 Date: June 7, 2004
    
    /s/ Frederick F. WolfeFrederick F. Wolfe, President/s/ Madelaine MorrowMadelaine Morrow, Secretary
#### SUCCESSION OF Elenora Gregoratti GUEZURAGA.

No. 87-C-0724.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Gregoratti, Rose; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-5992; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “A”, No. 86-4650.

Prior report: La.App., 503 So.2d 187.

Granted.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERT L. GARRIDO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RAYTHEON COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-55745

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03825-GAF-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Gilbert L. Garrido appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action alleging employment discrimination and retaliation

claims under California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”). He alleged

that he was illegally underpaid and terminated. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrido’s racial

discrimination claim because Garrido failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether he performed his job satisfactorily or whether similarly situated

individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably. See Guz v.

Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 8 P.3d 1089, 1113-14 (2000) (setting forth elements of prima

facie case of discrimination).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Garrido’s

retaliation claim because Garrido failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether there was a causal link between any protected activity and the

adverse employment action. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634,

646 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII);

Raad v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Sch. Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1197 (9th Cir. 2003)

(employer’s knowledge of protected activity necessary for causation); see also

Metoyer v. Chassman, 504 F.3d 919, 941 (9th Cir. 2007) (“California courts apply

the Title VII framework to claims brought under FEHA.”).

2 13-55745
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

3 13-55745
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

VICENTE CUELLAR,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00133-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D04843)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

brief until November 22, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza, the State’s attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 22, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9

th day of October, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 17

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which

requires (except during time of war and subject to suspension by the

Congress) that the total amount of money expended by the United

States during any fiscal year not exceed the amount of certain revenue

received by the United States during such fiscal year and not exceed

20 per centum of the gross national product of the United States during

the previous calendar year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. SHELBY introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States which requires (except during time of war and

subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total

amount of money expended by the United States during

any fiscal year not exceed the amount of certain revenue

received by the United States during such fiscal year

and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national

product of the United States during the previous calendar year.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
2

•SJ 17 IS

1 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol2 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con3 stitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified

4 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States

5 within 7 years of the date of final passage of this joint

6 resolution:

7 ‘‘ARTICLE —

8 ‘‘SECTION 1. The total amount of money expended

9 by the United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed

10 the total amount of revenue received by the United States

11 during such fiscal year, except revenue received from the

12 issuance of bonds, notes, or other obligations of the United

13 States.

14 ‘‘SECTION 2. The total amount of money expended

15 by the United States in any fiscal year shall not exceed

16 the amount equal to 20 per centum of the gross national

17 product of the United States during the last calendar year

18 ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.

19 ‘‘SECTION 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article shall

20 not apply during any fiscal year during any part of which

21 the United States is at war as declared by the Congress

22 under section 8 of Article I of the Constitution.

23 ‘‘SECTION 4. Sections 1 and 2 of this Article may

24 be suspended by a concurrent resolution approved by a

25 three-fifths vote of the Members of each House of the Con-
3

•SJ 17 IS

1 gress. Any suspension of sections 1 and 2 of this Article

2 under this section shall be effective only during the fiscal

3 year during which such suspension is approved.

4 ‘‘SECTION 5. This Article shall take effect on the first

5 day of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of the

6 adoption of this Article.

7 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall have power to en8 force this Article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
#### STATE ex rel. Alfred HARRISON v. Jerome M. WINSBERG, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0258.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Harrison, Alfred; applying for writ of certiorari; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 272-522.

Denied.
#### S.N. KNIGHTS & SONS and the Claims Center, Appellants, v. Leo Patrick MARTIN, Appellee.

No. 88-504.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 23, 1988.

Robert G. Brightman, Orlando, for appellants.

Ronald H. Watson, of Merritt and Watson, P.A., Eustis, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The employer appeals an order failing to rule on all pending issues which were ripe for adjudication. We reverse.

The employer contends that the deputy commissioner (deputy) erred as a matter of law in reserving juridiction to rule on whether the claimant’s complaints were a continuation of the original injury of July 27, 1984 or were the result of an accident or injury of September 7, 1985 or were unrelated complaints. This issue was ripe *960for adjudication and the deputy erred in failing to rule upon it. *South Miami Hospital v. Faz,*406 So.2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); *Garitson v. Rifenburg,*380 So.2d 1311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).

This cause is reversed and remanded to the deputy to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, and to rule on this issue.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.