alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GILDARDO CABELLO-ALFARO, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 13-3041 

(D.C. No. 5:11-CR-40045-JAR-6) 

(D. Kan.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Gildardo Cabello-Alfaro pled guilty to one count of unlawful use of a 

communication facility to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine. He was 

sentenced to forty-eight months’ imprisonment, the statutory maximum for his crime. 

Mr. Cabello-Alfaro’s plea agreement contained a waiver of his right to appeal from 

his conviction or sentence. In spite of this waiver, Mr. Cabello-Alfaro filed a notice 

 

* This panel has determined that oral argument would not materially assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The 

case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 

is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, 

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent 

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 24, 2013

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

of appeal seeking to challenge his sentence. The government has moved to enforce 

the appeal waiver pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) 

(per curiam). 

 When reviewing a motion to enforce, we consider “(1) whether the disputed 

appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the 

defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether 

enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. 

Mr. Cabello-Alfaro’s counsel submitted a response in opposition to the government’s 

motion, but she has not addressed the Hahn factors. Instead, she requests that we 

deny the motion because of Mr. Cabello-Alfaro’s belief that his sentence is 

“excessive.” Resp. at 2. Counsel admits, however, that the sentence was “below his 

guideline range and was significantly less than the original statutory mandatory 

minimum of 120 months that Mr. Cabello-Alfaro was originally charged with.” Id. 

Counsel does not dispute that the appeal falls within the appellate waiver or that 

Mr. Cabello-Alfaro knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. Likewise, 

counsel does not contend that enforcing the appellate waiver would result in a 

miscarriage of justice. 

 Accordingly, we conclude that the Hahn factors support the government’s 

position. We therefore grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss this 

appeal. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; AD/ADRD Management Evolution.
    Date: March 19, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maurizio Grimaldi, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on 
Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2C218, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, 301-496-9374, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680f1a010509040c01055a280509010446060100460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e285908b8f838e868b8fd0a28f838b8ecc8c8b8acc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 25, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01816 Filed 1-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1 4 ,

2018
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14- 18 -00293- CV NO. 14- 18 -00294- CV NO. 14- 18 -00295- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.B. a/k/a K.L.M., A CHILD IN THE INTEREST OF K.J.M., A CHILD IN THE INTEREST OF N.D.D., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 2013-00785, 2016-32301, and 2016-62702

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N These appeals are from judgments signed March 20, 2018. On June 5, 2018, appellant Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed motions to dismiss the appeals

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motions are granted and the appeals are dismissed

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1740 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1740

           To define and protect the institution of marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 1996

 Mr. Nickles (for himself and Mr. Dole) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To define and protect the institution of marriage.

    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 ``Defense of Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:
``Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
              thereof
    ``No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or 
Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, 
record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, 
possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the 
same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other 
State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising 
from such relationship.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

``1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect 
                            thereof.''.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means 
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, 
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who 
is a husband or a wife.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No.  333-07021), Form
S-3 (File Nos.  333-40429 and 333-55881), Post-Effective Amendment No.  1 on
Form S-8 to Form S-4 (File No.  333-51479-01), and Post-Effective Amendment No.
3 on Form S-3 to Form S-4 (File No.  333-51479-03).

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Miami, Florida,
  April 16, 2002.
Exhibit 32.1


The following statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

Re: BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the report of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank W. Getman Jr., President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 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
      result of operations of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd.



Date: September 30, 2005   /s/  Frank W. Getman Jr.
                         _____________________________________
                         Frank W. Getman Jr.
                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                         (chief executive officer
                         and chief financial officer)









A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. and
will be retained by BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                           15,056
<SECURITIES>                     85,101
<RECEIVABLES>                    28,617
<ALLOWANCES>                        350
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                130,313
<PP&E>                          201,805
<DEPRECIATION>                   45,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  288,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            38,183
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          4,114
<OTHER-SE>                      242,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    288,278
<SALES>                         144,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                225,630
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   134,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  6,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 100,153
<INCOME-TAX>                     40,197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              59,956
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     59,956
<EPS-BASIC>                      3.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.66


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-4 No. 333-52969) of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated June 1, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Keystone Automotive
Industries, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
March 27, 1998.
 
  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-24047) pertaining to the Keystone Automotive
Industries, Inc. 1996 Employee Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated June
1, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended March 27, 1998.
 
                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                    Ernst & Young LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
June 23, 1998
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________

No. 3D18-345 Lower Tribunal No. 15-7712

________________



### Laura Ann Cancio n/k/a Laura Ann Davis, Appellant,

vs.



### Juan Manuel Cancio, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Mi ami-Dade County, Maria Elena Verde, Judge.

Law Offices of Robin Bresky, and Robin Bresky and Jeremy Dick er (Boca Raton), for appellant.

Juan Manuel Cancio, in proper person.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 Finding the issues raised in the current appeal virtually iden tical to the issues

raised by appellant in her prior appeal which was affirmed, Can cio v. Cancio, Case

No. 17-2774 (Fla. 3d DCA May 16, 2018), we affirm here as well.

Affirmed.
* 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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10897 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ-PRIMO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:05-CR-1-1

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Enrique Dominguez-Primo raises arguments that are 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.
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 4.9

                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT


                       Between Registrant and Jerome Dahme



                                       
<PAGE>   2
                         PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

      This Agreement memorializes an Agreement between Helionetics, Inc., with
its place of business at 6849 Hayvenhurst Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406
(herein referred to as "Client") and Jerome Dahme with his\their place of
business at 4003 Birdie Lane, Doylestown, PA 18901 (herein referred to as
"Employee\Consultant") as through August 1996. In consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein and other valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which is acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:

      I.    QUALIFICATION: The Employee has special skill and and experience in
            certain fields of activity in which the Client is interested.

      II.   SERVICES RENDERED: Client engaged the nonexclusive services of
            Employee in 1995\1996 and Employee rendered substantial services to
            Client over the period ended August 31,1996.

      III.  COMPENSATION: The Client issued to Employee an amount of 21,073
            restricted shares of the Client's common stock, in payment in full
            for the aforesaid services rendered through August 31, 1996.

      IV.   ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This document represents the complete agreement
            between the parties and may be modified or amended only by executed
            written agreements. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
            with the laws of the State of California.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the day and year noted above.

"Client"                                  "Consultant"
HELIONETICS, INC.



By:/s/ E. MAXWELL MALONE                       /s/ JEROME DAHME
   ------------------------              -----------------------------
   E. Maxwell Malone                     Jerome Dahme
   Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DEMETRIO DIAZ AND ALICIA GARZA-DIAS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00039-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. AND COCHRAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on September 14, 2011. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

DEMETRIO DIAZ AND ALICIA GARZA-DIAS.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 32.1


                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of PFS Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant")
hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

                                  /s/Mel E. Green
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Mel E. Green
                                  Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 14, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to PFS Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by PFS Bancorp, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2058 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2058

 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 1996

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Kyl) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

    (a) In General.--The table under section 44(a) of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to the District 
of Columbia and inserting the following:

``District of Columbia......................................      11''.
    (b) Existing Vacancy not Filled.--In order to comply with the 
amendment made under subsection (a), a vacancy of a circuit judge on 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
which existed on the date preceding the date of the enactment of this 
Act, shall not be filled.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 3, 2013

p0327 

# Order

April 3, 2013

145995

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145995

COA: 307935

Wayne CC: 01

- 002954

- FH

RYAN MICHAEL JONES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
##### 



CURRENT COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR
NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
 Base Salary
 K. S. Hachigian  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    1,000,000T. A. Klebe  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
    
    $
    500,000P. M. Isabella  Executive Vice President, Cooper Connection
    
    $
    420,000D. R. Sheil  Senior Vice President, Human Resources and
Chief Administrative Officer
    
    $
    388,500G. L. Gawronski  Vice President, International Operations
    
    $
    320,000