alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-51197

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bernardino Adrian Venzor-Ortega, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-685-1

Before Jones, Elrod, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bernardino Adrian Venzor-Ortega appeals his sentence of 24 months 

of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for his guilty plea 

conviction of illegal reentry after removal from the United States, in violation 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-51197 Document: 00516361287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2022
No. 21-51197

2

For the first time on appeal, he challenges the district court’s 

application of the enhanced penalty in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) as unconstitutional 

because it permits a defendant to be sentenced above the statutory maximum 

of § 1326(a) based on the fact of a prior conviction that was not alleged in the 

indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Although VenzorOrtega’s 24-month prison sentence is within the otherwise applicable 

statutory maximum in § 1326(a), the application of § 1326(b) allowed the 

district court to sentence him to three years of supervised release, above the 

one-year maximum for a § 1326(a) offense. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 

3583(b). 

However, he correctly concedes that the argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). See, e.g., United 

States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Venzor-Ortega raises 

the issue to preserve it for further review and has filed an unopposed motion 

for summary disposition. Because summary disposition is appropriate, see 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), VenzorOrtega’s motion is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-51197 Document: 00516361287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2022
Empty Net Media, LLC

9715 N FM 620 #4208

Austin, TX 78726

512-522-9771

September 04, 20XX

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Empty Net Media, LLC, a visual media production

company, hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations

(“FARs”) to allow commercial operation of its UAS 3DR Solo , so long as such operations are

conducted within and under the conditions established by the FAA as required by Section

333.1.

Sincerely,

James Headrick
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-35,575-26 AND WR-35,575-27

EX P ARTE JAMES WES LEY MCCARTNEY, Applicant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. CR92-0532-A- W-9 AND CR92-0533- A-W-9 IN THE 51S T DIST RICT COURT F ROM TOM G REEN COUNTY

Per curiam .

O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cl er k o f the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habea s corp u s . E x parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s co n v i cted of capital murder a nd ag g ravated kidnappingand sente nced to imprisonment. In his prese n t ap p l ications, Applicant raises sever al g rounds. The applications, howeve r, prese nt a more serious question. This Court’s rec ords ref lect that Applicant has fil ed m an y p ri or habea s applications perta ining to these convicti o n s . I t is obvious from the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise issues that have been prese nted and reje cted in previous applications or that should2

have been prese nted in previous applications. The writ of habea s corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders v. U.S. , 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr , 511 S.W .2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Be cause of his repe titive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claim s ar e barr ed from revie w under Article 11.07, § 4, a

nd are waived and abandone d by his a buse of the writ. These a pplications are dismiss ed. There fore , we inst ruct the Clerk of the C ourt of C rimi n al Ap p ea ls not to acc ept or file t he instant applicat i o n s fo r writs of habea s corpus, or any future application perta ining to these convictions unless Applicant is able to show in suc h an application that any claims prese nted have not been raised previously and that they could not have been prese nted in a previous application for

a wr it of habea s corpus. Ex parte Bilton , 602 S.W .2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: Apr il 3, 2019 Do not publish
#### Katie Marie BARNETT, Appellant, v. Arlie Wayland BARNETT, Jr., Appellee.

No. 13925.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Houston.

April 5, 1962.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1962.

*854Shead, Dearman & Wiswell, William C. Shead, Houston, for appellant.

Solito, Vetrano & Murr, Peter S. Solito, Houston, for appellee.

WERLEIN, Justice.

Appellant sued her husband for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment. Appel-lee, in his amended petition, denied appellant’s allegations of cruel treatment and pleaded recrimination, condonation and adultery on the part of appellant. The case was tried without a jury. At the conclusion of appellant’s evidence, the trial court on motion of appellee denied the divorce and entered judgment for appellee. _

Appellant asserts that she made out a prima facie case for divorce and that the court erred in entering judgment for ap-pellee because the judgment is contrary to the undisputed evidence and unauthorized as a matter of law.

Since the record contains no findings of fact or conclusions of law by the trial court, the trial court’s judgment implies all necessary fact findings in support thereof. In seeking to determine whether there is any evidence to support the judgment and the court’s implied fact findings, “it is proper to consider only that evidence most favorable to the issue and to disregard entirely that which is opposed to it or contradictory in its nature.” Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 19S0, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609, 23 A.L.R.2d 1114.

We think it would serve no useful purpose to set out testimony of appellant, as to cruelty on the part of appellee or her own acts of cruelty admitted by her on cross-examination. It will suffice to say that we have carefully read the statement of facts and are of the opinion that appellant testified to alleged acts of cruelty on the part of appellee which would support a judgment for divorce in her favor had the court entered such judgment. She also testified to conduct on her part which would amply support a finding by the court of cruelty and recrimination.

Appellant, when asked if she had' had illicit relations with certain men, refused to answer on the ground that it might incriminate her. The court did not require her to testify in those instances, and it will be presumed that the court did not consider such refusal to testify as evidence of guilt or wrongdoing. Article 4633, Vernon’s Annotated Texas Statutes. There was other sufficient and competent evidence to sustain the judgment and it will be presumed that the court based its judgment thereon. 24 Tex.Jur.2d § 553, p. 48.

Judgment affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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 March 3, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40905 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUANITA ROJAS-URESTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(L-01-CR-1203-ALL)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to this court’s 20 May 2003 order, (1) a transcript of the rearraignment proceedi ng having been obtained and (2) Juanita Rojas-Ureste’s pro se request for substitution of counsel having been denied, counsel appointed to represent Rojas-Ureste has renewed his request for leave to withdraw and has filed an amended brief. Rojas-Ureste has not responded. This satisfies the procedures mandated by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).No. -2-

2 Our independent review of the brief and record disclose s no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counse l is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED
. S ee 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A

- 2616

- 19

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF

CHILD PROTECTION AND

PERMAN CY,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

J.B.,

Defendant.

__________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF E.B.

and J.B., m inors

.

__________________________

Argued February 23, 2021

– Decided March 2 6 , 202 1

Before Judges Fisher, Gilson and Gummer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2

A

- 2616

- 19 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County,

Docket No. FG

- 16

- 0048

- 18.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Ryan T. Clark, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Toni Lynn Imperiale, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, att orney for minors (Meredith Alexis Pollock, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel; Todd Wilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The parties hav e reached an amicable settlement of the issues presented

in this appeal. By way of that settlement, the parties have consented to a

vacation of the judgment under review and a remand for further proceedings

more fully described in a separate order also entered today.

T he appeal is dismissed.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ADOLFO SANDOVAL-GALVEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10523

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00584-SRB-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Adlofo Sandoval-Galvez (“Sandoval-Galvez”) appeals his conviction for a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the district court abused its

discretion when it admitted into evidence certified copies of immigration records

documenting his eight prior illegal entries and related removals. We affirm. 

FILED

NOV 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The district court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Lynch, 367 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004). If evidence is

improperly admitted, reversal is appropriate only if the error was not harmless. 

United States v. Derington, 229 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2000). “If, on the record

as a whole, consideration by the jury of the evidence for that purpose would not

have likely changed its decision, then the error was harmless.” Id.

Sandoval-Galvez contends that the district court abused its discretion under

Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403 when it allowed the government to

introduce evidence of eight prior illegal entries and related removals to prove that

Sandoval-Galvez knowingly and voluntarily entered the United States on the date

in question. 

We need not resolve this question, because even assuming that the district

court abused its discretion, the admission of evidence documenting his eight prior

entries and removals was harmless error. United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683,

688 (9th Cir. 2002). The government provided a significant amount of other

evidence to show that Sandoval-Galvez knowingly and voluntarily crossed into the

United States. Sandoval-Galvez admitted to Border Patrol agents that he was

headed to Los Angeles and he knew that it was unlawful to cross into the United

States. Border Patrol agents tracked a single set of footprints from the Colorado
3

River to Sandoval-Galvez’s location and confirmed that his shoes matched the

tracks. Given this additional evidence, any error in admitting Sandoval-Galvez’s

eight prior entries and removals was harmless.

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 176 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-169, CP2024-175.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-02540 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

Syms Corp 
Secaucus, New Jersey

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 2-9703, 333-44254 and 333-127399) of Syms Corp of our reports
dated May 13, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the
effectiveness of Syms Corp internal control over financial reporting which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated May13, 2010 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ BDO
 Seidman, LLP
|                     
|BDO Seidman,
 LLP    
|New York,
 New York  
|May 13, 2010         

---
EXHIBIT 23.1



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-18201) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan of TV Filme, Inc. of
our report  dated  March 12,  1999 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements of TV Filme,  Inc.  included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG
                                                  Auditores Independentes, S. C.

Sao Paulo, Brazil
April 14, 1999
Exhibit 10. 17

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount:  $200,000.00                                         Date:  May 22, 2002

         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Mid-Power Service Corporation
("Borrower"), promises to pay to the order of SCRS Investors, LLC ("Lender") the
principal sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($200,000.00) with
interest thereon at the rate of nine percent (9%) per annum until May 22, 2004
(maturity).

         All payments shall be paid in lawful money of the United States without
relief from valuation or appraisement laws and with attorney's fees and each
payment shall be credited first to accrued interest then to principal. The
Borrower shall have the right of repaying the entire principal balance at any
time without penalty.

         Interest hereunder shall accrue on the original principal sum of
$200,000.00 from the issuance date of this Note, and shall be computed on the
basis of a 365 or 366 day year, as the case may be, and the actual numbers of
days elapsed (including the first day but excluding the last day) during the
period for which such interest is payable.

         The entire principal balance and accrued interest owing thereon shall
become immediately due and payable on May 22, 2004. All past due amounts shall
bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum.

         Maker and all other parties now or hereafter liable for payment hereof,
whether as endorser, guarantor, surety or otherwise, severally waive demand,
presentment, notice of dishonor, notice of default, notice of intent to
accelerate, diligence in collecting, grace, notice and protest and consent to
all extension which from time to time may be granted by the holder hereof and to
all partial payments hereon, whether before or after maturity.

         If this Note is not paid when due, whether at maturity or by
acceleration, or if it is collected through a bankruptcy, probate or other
court, whether before or after maturity, the maker hereof agrees to pay all
costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees,
incurred by the holder hereof.

         This Note shall be governed by and interpreted and constructed in
accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada.

         The term "maker" as used herein shall include the undersigned and its
permitted successors and assigns.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
Note on the date first above written.

                                            /s/ Kenneth M. Emter
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            By: Mid-Power Service Corporation
                                            Kenneth M. Emter, Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8728-8729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02542]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 8729]]

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
177 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-170, CP2024-176.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-02542 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of July 2, 2010 (this Amendment), to the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT dated as of May 19, 2010 (the Settlement Agreement), by and between
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation (MasterCard), and HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation (HPS). Terms defined in the Settlement Agreement and not otherwise defined
herein are used herein as so defined. The Settlement Agreement as amended by this Amendment is herein called the Amended Settlement Agreement.

1. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement, HPS and MasterCard hereby agree that, if the Unsatisfied Threshold Event shall not have occurred or if the
Opt-In Threshold Condition shall have been waived as provided in Section 4.1, MasterCard shall deliver (as provided in clause (a), (b) or (d) of Section 10.1) to HPS no later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern time on July 9, 2010 the
Alternative Recovery Acceptance Report.

2. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will
be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute but one and the same instrument. A facsimile signature shall be deemed an original for purposes of this Amendment. This Amendment will become effective when it has been duly executed
and delivered by each of the parties hereto.

3. Except to the extent specifically amended by this Amendment, the Settlement
Agreement shall remain unmodified, and the Amended Settlement Agreement is hereby confirmed as being in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Settlement Agreement as an agreement under seal as of the date first above
written.



MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED/s/ Wendy MurdockWendy MurdockChief Franchise OfficerHEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC./s/ Charles H.N. KallenbachCharles H.N. KallenbachGeneral Counsel and Chief Legal Officer