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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-21163

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO DE LA CERDA-GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-255-1

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Francisco De La Cerda-Guerrero 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. 

De La Cerda-Guerrero contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. De La Cerda-Guerrero maintains
No.02-21163

-2-

that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release

which may be imposed for that offense. 

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. 

De La Cerda-Guerrero 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.
25501

#### Merck v. Western Ins. Service, Inc.

Vacated and Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,719,642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,752,860
<PP&E>                                      21,809,494
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,449,875)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,112,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          606,653
<BONDS>                                        981,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,524,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,112,479
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,218,458
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,205,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,892,009
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,892,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,892,009
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2016202EN.01015201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/152 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/152

---

Article 231

(ex Article 198 TEC)

(ex Article 198 TEC)

Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, the European Parliament shall act by a majority of the votes cast.

The Rules of Procedure shall determine the quorum.

---
#### Female Child, In re Adoption of

23229

06/18/2003

Affirmed
tm


 





 


Agreement
for Taking Your Brand to The World's Largest Retailer


Addendum
b.(5/1/2018)


Amazon
Brand Development & Launch | 150-Day
Plan


 


February
24th, 2018





 



    	 	1	 



     


    




 





-
Agreement - Addendum
b.


 


Agreement Inception Date:March 15th,2018 Suggested Start Date.
(Phase One)


 


Agreement Ending Date:150 Days after the commencement of Phase
start.


 


Agreement to be re-visited 45 days before
the end of terms. At that time, we can discuss options based on account anyalitics, options for selling direct to Amazon Whole
Sale vs FBA, hand everything over to Hempd, or scale and continue services from all perspectives. (In
addition, we will manage HEMPd eBay listings for the remainder of the term at no additional cost (except hard advertising dollars
if you choose to advertise on eBay, 100% of the ad spend billed will be applied directly to the campaign. not any service fees
to BUY DMIINC/ Good for You (dba).) We can provide additional information on how eBay advertising works in a separate file produced
by eBay.


 


 


Payment Schedule:


 


First Draft TBA:$7,000 (Can
be made via Credit Card Includes $1,000 One-Time Integration Fee)


April 15th, 2018:$6,000 (Paid via check)


May 15th, 2018:$6,000 (Paid via check)


June 15th, 2018:$6,000 (Paid via check)


July 15th, 2018:$6,000 (Paid via check)


 


Total of All Payments:$31,000.00


 


100% of all Hemp Amazon & eBay’s Sale’s
Net Proceeds will be paid to Hempd, monthly.


 


Full Amazon sales reports, stock reports, defect
chargebacks, customer return costs and detail page analytics (non-advertising) will be forwarded to Hempd on a monthly basis or
as requested.


 


Acceptance of Terms Outlined In This Proposal


 


Signature of Hempd Representative: /s/
Michael R. Welch


Printed Name and Title: Michael R. Welch, CEODate:
5/4/18


Signature of Buy DMi Inc. Representative: /s/
Matthew Sabia


Printed Name and Title: Matthew Sabia (CEO)Date:
5/1/2018


 






    	 	2
### Devany, Dennis 

### (OSn

From: rands [rands@starband.net]

.Sent: • Monday, February 15, 2010 8:59 PM To':' ;c' ,." :Devany, Dennis (OST) Subject: about your Cape Air decision

..**"'"'~**___ ' r,.**~** Hello,",**',~' 7~"**  We are residents ofthe north countryhere in New York who want the continuation ofCape Air services in Plattsburgh. New York. The Clinton County legislature has voted againstkeeping Cape Air at the Plattsburgh International Airport and has voted to have Colgan Air replace them. Wehave heard that you there at the DOT have the last say in the matter and are not bound to accept the legislature's recommendation and are hoping you come to a different conclusion and Cape Air will possibly remain in Plattsburgh.with your final decision. As customers, we are wholly satisfied with CapeAir's safety, price, reliability and amount offlights scheduled per week, we will not use Colgan Air oruse the Plattsburgh Airport ifthe change takes place. Plus Colgan Air is asking US taxpayers for a subsidy that is 59% higher then CapeAir's.

We sincerely thank you for your time, Royce and Susan Stubbs
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,805,630
<SECURITIES>                                   789,440
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,038,759
<PP&E>                                       7,440,003
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,574,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,907,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,899,183
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         36
<COMMON>                                       208,172
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,799,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,907,327
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               418,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,685,131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,266,692)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,266,692)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,266,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Henry Clay Statue
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Charles H. Niehaus

Materials
    Bronze

Year
    1929

Location
      
National Statuary Hall

This statue of Henry Clay was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by Kentucky in 1929.

Henry Clay was born in Hanover County, Virginia, on April 12, 1777. His only formal education was three years at a small school. After his father died, his mother remarried and Clay moved to Richmond. His stepfather secured him a position with the clerk of the High Court of Chancery. Inspired, Clay began law studies in 1796, finished a year later, and quickly earned a reputation as a skillful lawyer. In 1797 Clay moved to Lexington, Kentucky, a city with a reputation for culture and influence.

He was elected a U.S. senator for a short term in 1806-1807. He then returned to serve in the Kentucky legislature from 1808 to 1809. He returned to the United States Senate from 1810 to 1811; he also served in the Senate from 1831 to 1842 and from 1849 to 1852. Henry Clay had the distinction of also serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1811 to 1821 and from 1823 to 1825; he was Speaker of the House from 1811 to 1820.

Clay also served as a member of the Ghent Peace Commission. President John Quincy Adams appointed him secretary of state from 1825 to 1829, and he ran as the Whig nominee for President in 1832. Clay was author of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850. Henry Clay died on June 29, 1852. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Exhibit
32.5
 
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
 CENTRAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
 (required
by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)
 
 
 In
connection with the report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004 of Central Illinois Public Service Company (the “Company”) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-K"), I, Gary L. Rainwater, chief executive 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:
 
 (1)
    The
      Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
March 9, 2005
  ****/s/ Gary L.
    RainwaterGary L. RainwaterChairman and Chief Executive
      Officer(Principal Executive
Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3352

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James D. Fugate

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: May 7, 2014

Filed: May 20, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
James Fugate appeals the 20-month prison sentence that the district court1

imposed upon him after revoking the supervised release that he had been serving for

three offenses. For reversal, Fugate argues that the sentence is excessive.

Upon careful review, see United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion. The revocation sentence is within statutory limits, and at the

revocation hearing, the district court articulated multiple valid reasons for its

sentencing decision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Mangum, 625 F.3d

466, 470 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. 

We direct counsel to inform appellant about the procedures for filing a petition for

rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
* 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

October 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-11347

Summary Calendar

LANCE GERHARD EDWARDS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

RespondentAppellee.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-2673-M

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In May 1998, Lance Gerhard Edwards, now Texas prisoner #831407, was convicted by guilty

plea of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit theft and sentenced to 30 years’

imprisonment. He appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as

time-barred. The district court granted a certificate of appealability as to: (1) whether the initial filing-2-

of Edwards’s state habeas corpus application constituted a “properly filed” application for purposes

of the statutory tolling provision under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); and (2) whether Edwards was

entitle d t o equitable tolling. This court reviews d e novo the district court’s denial of a § 2254

application based upon procedural grounds. G rillette v. Warden, Winn Corr. Ctr.

, 372 F.3d 765, 769

(5th Cir. 2004).

The init ial filing of Edwards’s state habeas corpus application did not constitute a “properly

filed” application for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) b ecause the Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals determined that t he application failed to comply with T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 73.2. S ee Artuz v.

Bennett

, 531 U.S . 4, 8 (2000); L arry v. Dretke

, 361 F.3d 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover,

Edwards has failed to allege circumstances warranting equitable tolling from the time he init ially filed

his state habeas corpus application to the time that application was retu r ned to him for

noncompliance. S ee Felder v. Johnson

, 204 F.3d 168, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2000); Coleman v. Johnson

,

1 84 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, because the district court properly dismissed

Edwards’s instant application as barred by limitations, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CENTEX
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.'S MARCH 31, 1998, FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000818764
<NAME> CENTEX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     42,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           500
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,569
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,260
<SALES>                                         19,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,618
<CGS>                                           15,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,524
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
  Percent of OutstandingJurisdiction of
    
    Voting SecuritiesIncorporation or
    
    Owned as ofName of Subsidiary
    
    Organization
    
    December 30, 2006Agricola Santa Ines, S.A.
    
    Honduras
    
    
    100
    %Agroindustrial Pinas del Bosque S.A.
    
    Costa Rica
    
    
    100
    %Agropecuaria El Provenir, S.A. de C.V.
    
    Honduras
    
    
    100
    %Ashford Company Limited
    
    Bermuda
    
    
    100
    %Bananapuerto Puerto Bananero S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    
    100
    %Bud Antle, Inc.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Cartones San Fernando S.A.
    
    Chile
    
    
    100
    %Coastal Berry Company, LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Dole Chile S.A.
    
    Chile
    
    
    96
    %Dole Comercializacion, S.A.
    
    Spain
    
    
    100
    %Dole Deutschland GmbH
    
    Germany
    
    
    100
    %Dole Dried Fruit and Nut Company, a California general partnership
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Dole Europe Import BVBA
    
    Belgium
    
    
    100
    %Dole Foods of Canada Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    
    100
    %Dole France S.A.S.
    
    France
    
    
    100
    %Dole Fresh Flowers, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Dole Fresh Fruit Company
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %Dole Fresh Fruit Europe OHG
    
    Germany
    
    
    100
    %Dole Fresh Fruit International, Limited
    
    Liberia
    
    
    100
    %Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Dole Italia s.p.a.
    
    Italy
    
    
    100
    %Dole Japan, Ltd.
    
    Japan
    
    
    100
    %Dole Korea Limited
    
    Korea
    
    
    100
    %Dole Packaged Foods, LLC
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Dole Packaged Foods Europe
    
    France
    
    
    100
    %Dole Philippines, Inc.
    
    Philippines
    
    
    100
    %Dole South Africa (Pty), Ltd.
    
    South Africa
    
    
    100
    %Dole Thailand Limited
    
    Thailand
    
    
    64
    %Inversiones del Pacifico S.A.
    
    Chile
    
    
    100
    %JP Fresh Limited
    
    England
    
    
    100
    %Lindero Headquarters Company, Inc.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Paul Kempowski GmbH & Co. KG
    
    Germany
    
    
    100
    %Productora Cartonera, S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    
    100
    %Royal Packing Co.
    
    California
    
    
    100
    %Saba Fresh Cuts AB
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %Saba Frukt & Gront AB, Helsingborg
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %Saba Trading AB
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %Shanghai Dole Food Company, Ltd.
    
    China
    
    
    100
    %Siembranueva S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    
    100
    %Singletree Corp.
    
    Panama
    
    
    100
    %Solvest, Ltd.
    
    Bermuda
    
    
    100
    %Standard Fruit Company de Costa Rica, S.A.
    
    Costa Rica
    
    
    100
    %Standard Fruit De Honduras, S.A.
    
    Honduras
    
    
    100
    %Union de Bananeros Ecuatorianos, S.A.
    
    Ecuador
    
    
    100
    %