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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50228

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELOY JULIAN CARDENAS BACA,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________

Consolidated with 

01-50229

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE OBED ESPARZA-GONZALEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant,

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 01-50237

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VICTOR SANCHEZ-MUNOZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. EP-00-CR-1891-ALL-H, 

 00-CR-1497-ALL & 00-CR-607-ALL 

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

December 12, 2001
No. 01-50228 c/w

Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237

-2-

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elroy Julian Cardenas Baca, Jose Obed Esparza-Gonzalez, and

Victor Sanchez-Munoz all argue that they are entitled to be

resentenced because the district court failed to verify that

their counsel had read and discussed their presentence reports

(PSRs) with them prior to sentencing in violation of Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(A). 

We agree that the district court failed to comply with Rule

32(c)(3)(A) in each of the appellants’ cases. However, because

the appellants did not raise the issue of noncompliance in the

district court, the court will correct the error only if it was

plain and affected the appellants’ substantial rights. See

United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir.

2001); see also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34

(1993). 

The appellants failed to object to the Rule 32(c)(3)(A)

violation in the district court. The appellants have not

asserted that they did not review or discuss their PSRs with

their defense counsel, but rely upon their respective records’

failure to indicate that they had reviewed and discussed the PSR

with counsel. Thus, the appellants have not asserted that they

were prejudiced by the court’s Rule 32(c)(3)(A) oversight. 
No. 01-50228 c/w

Nos. 01-50229 & 01-50237

-3-

Because the appellants have failed to carry their burden of

demonstrating prejudice, i.e., that their substantial rights were

affected, they have not demonstrated plain error. See United

States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d at 456, 459 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

531 U.S. 972 (2000). The appellants’ convictions and sentences

are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR




RULE
      15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
      connection with the quarterly report of Internal Hydro International, Inc.
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Craig A. Huffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Date: November
              13, 2005
            By:
            /s/ Craig
              A.
              HuffmanCraig
              A. HuffmanTitle:
               Chief
              Executive Officer
Helvetia Asset Recovery, /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 19, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00569

- CV

Burton KAHN

, Appellant

v.

HELVETIA ASSET RECOVERY, INC.

, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 18355

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO PEREZ-ZARATE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73456

Agency No. A097-760-885

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. 

Pablo Perez-Zarate, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We dismiss the petition for review. 

FILED

JAN 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73456

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that

Perez-Zarate failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a

qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.

2005). We do not address Perez-Zarate’s challenges to findings set forth by the IJ

but not adopted by the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.

2009) (where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than

adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the

extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20092 C onfer enc e Cal endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. JO SE G A R C I A , al so know n as Pedro G ar c i a D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 7

- CR- 3 6 0

- ALL

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D E N N IS, an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * J o s e G a r c ia a p p e a ls h is g u iltyp le a co n v ic tio n fo rb e in gfo u n du n la w fu lly i n t h e U n ite dS ta te s fo llo w in gd e p o r ta tio n in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6
. H e requ e sts o n ly t h at t h i s c ou rtexerci se i t s pow er pursu an tt o F ederalR u l e of C ri m i n a lP roce d u re 3 6 to correc t an all eg e d c le r i ca lerro r i n the j u d gm en t. S peci f i c ally, hea ll e ge s thatthe di s t ri ctcourt ’ s j u dg m en tm i si den t i f i es t h e na t u re United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20092

2 o f hi s o f fe ns e a s “ [i] l l e ga l r e e nt r y af t e r de po r t at i o n” w he n i t s ho ul d s t at e t hathe
w a s fo u n du n la w fu llyin th e U n ite dS ta te s . R u l e 36 aut ho r i z e s t hi s c o ur t t o c o r r e c t o nl y c l e r i c al e r r o r s , w hi c h exi st
w he n “ t he c o ur t i nt e nde d o ne t hi ng butb y m e r e l y c l e r i c alm i s t ak e o ro ve r s i ght di d anot her. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t een , 55 F. 3d 1022, 1026 n. 3 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) (i n t e r n a l q u o t a t io n m a r k s a n dc it a t io n s o m it t e d ). In th e d i s t r ic tc o u r t ’s j u dg m en t , th e “ N ature of O f f en se”descrip tion , “[i] ll e g a l ree n trya fterd e p o rta tion f ol l ow i n g convic t i on f or an ag grava t ed fel on y, ” so cl osel y t racks t h e § 1326 t i t l e,

“ [ r ] e e nt r y o f

r e m o ve d al i e ns , ” t hati tb e ar s no i ndi c i a o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur tha vi ng
m ad e a m i st ak e or oversi gh t
. R ather, i t ap pea rs t h at t h e di st ri ctcourti n t en ded t h e “N ature of O f

fen se” to refer gen eral l y t o t h e t i t l e of § 1326

. Th eref

ore, t h ere is n o cle r ic a l e r r o r , a n dth e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B u end i a-R angel , 5 5 3 F .3d 3 7 8 , 3 7 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ).
#### Ex parte Adolph V. SIEMON.

No. 30179.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1958.

Charles William Tessmer, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John Mead, Jr., A. George Biggs and A. D. Jim Bowie, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an extradition case.

The governor of this state ordered appellant — relator in the court below — extradited to the State of West Virginia.

The requisition and accompanying papers of the governor of that state evidence the following:

Relator was. indicted, tried, and convicted in the State of West Virginia for the offense of embezzlement and his punishment fixed at “not less than one nor more than ten years, or until released on parole, as authorized by law.”

In obedience to that conviction, relator was incarcerated in the penitentiary of that state on the 22nd day of May, 1951, where he remained until the 29th day of February, 1952, at which time he was released on parole by order of the director of probation and parole.

Among other things, the agreement upon which the parole was granted was that relator would not violate the laws of that state, or of any state, or of the United States.

*717The agreement of parole made no reference to the penalty which would or might be imposed by a violation of the terms thereof — that is, whether the parole would or could be revoked because of a violation.

The West Virginia Board of Probation and Parole, in petition to the governor of that state, sought requisition because relator had been convicted in the federal court of the Eastern District of Louisiana of a felony.

Upon that petition and the facts heretofore stated, the governor of the State of West Virginia issued his requisition to the governor of this state.

Upon its face, the requisition says that it was issued because relator stood charged with the crime of “EMBEZZLEMENT AND WHO HAS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF HIS PAROLE.” (sic)

The governor of this state issued his ■executive warrant for the same reason.

There is nothing in this record ■showing that relator’s parole has been revoked, in fact, under the laws of the State •of West Virginia. Such being true, the presumption attains that the laws of that state are the same as in this state. Ex parte Guinn, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 293, 284 S.W.2d 721.

All this record shows is that relator has been guilty of acts which would authorize revocation of his parole. Is extradition authorized under such state of facts ?

Sec. 3 of Art. 1008a, Vernon’s C.C.P., appears to furnish the answer. Therein it is provided that extradition is authorized when, together with a copy of the indictment or a copy of the judgment of conviction, the demand for extradition is accompanied by a statement of the executive authority of the demanding state that the person sought to be extradited “has broken the terms of his * * * probation or parole.”

It is apparent, therefore,-that under our statute the *right exists to*extradite for the purpose of revoking parole.

The judgment of the trial court remanding relator to the custody of the arresting officer is 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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), America's DataHub Consortium (“ADC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Compendium Technologies LLC, Fort Mill, SC; Metadata Technology North America, Inc., Knoxville, TN; National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Washington, DC; The Data Foundation, Inc., Washington, DC; Tumult Labs, Durham, NC; and Valkyrie AI LLC dba Reclassify AI LLC, Albany, NY, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ADC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On November 11, 2021, ADC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 22, 2021 (86 FR 72628).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 15, 2023 (88 FR 86934).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-02284 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 319

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local educational

agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally-protected

prayer in schools.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 1 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State

or local educational agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally-protected prayer in schools.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Voluntary School Pray5 er Protection Act’’.
2

S 319 IS

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CON2 STITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED SCHOOL PRAY3 ER.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, no funds made available through the Depart6 ment of Education shall be provided to any State or local

7 educational agency that has a policy of denying, or that

8 effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally-pro9 tected prayer in public schools by individuals on a vol10 untary basis.

11 (b) LIMITATION.—No person shall be required to par12 ticipate in prayer or influence the form or content of any

13 constitutionally-protected prayer in public schools.

Æ
JUVENILE COURT PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

FINAL REPORT1

Amendment of Pa.R.J.C.P. 1601 and 1608

On May 17, 2018, the Supreme Court amended Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure 

1601 and 1608 to require prior notice if a dependent child’s permanency review hearing 

may result in a goal change away from reunification.

The Juvenile Court Procedural Rules Committee undertook rulemaking to address 

reported circumstances wherein permanency review hearings resulted in goal changes

that discontinued reunification without prior notice that such a goal change would be 

decided at the hearing. This appeared inconsistent with the best practice of providing

notice of an upcoming goal change hearing. See Pennsylvania Children’s Roundtable 

Initiative. Pennsylvania Dependency Benchbook at p. 119. Harrisburg, PA: Office of 

Children and Families in the Courts, 2010.

After considering comments in response to a prior proposal, see 47 Pa.B. 947 

(February 18, 2017), the Committee revised the proposal to extend Rule 1601(B) to 

include all parties (e.g., GAL) rather than solely the county agency. Moreover, the

previously proposed provision for a discretionary rehearing was eliminated, believing that 

the effect of a goal change from reunification was so significant that due process required 

timely notice of the possibility of a goal change from reunification in all instances. 

Given the gravity of a permanency review hearing that may result in a goal change 

from reunification, the Committee proposed to amend Rule 1608(d)(1)(c) to require that 

notice in accordance with proposed Rule 1601(B) be given before a court can order a 

goal change from reunification. As indicated in the revised Comment to Rule 1608, the 

court should direct the county agency to give notice to all other parties when the court 

seeks to change the goal in the absence of such notice.

Additionally, post-publication, the phrase “placement goal” was revised to 

“permanency goal” to more accurately describe the goal.

The amendments will become effective October 1, 2018.

 

1 The Committee’s Final Report should not be confused with the official Committee 

Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the 

Committee’s Comments or the contents of the Committee’s explanatory Final Reports.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         456,857
<SECURITIES>                                   511,346
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    764,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,806,282
<PP&E>                                         178,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,963,450
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,082,398
<COMMON>                                       237,946
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,110,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,856,521
<SALES>                                        936,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               978,675
<CGS>                                          444,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,026,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,145)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 661

To require the continued availability of $1 Federal reserve notes for

circulation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 3 (legislative day, MARCH 27), 1995

Mr. LOTT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To require the continued availability of $1 Federal reserve

notes for circulation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save the Greenback

5 Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM AMOUNTS

7 OF $1 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES IN CIRCULA8 TION.

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec10 retary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the
2

•S 661 IS

1 Federal Reserve System shall take such actions as may

2 be necessary to ensure that the number of Federal reserve

3 notes in the denomination of $1 that are in circulation

4 at any time does not decrease below the number of such

5 reserve notes in circulation as of the date of enactment

6 of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: July 30, 2009



/S/ MICHAEL P. GRAYMichael P. GrayChief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
----

----

|   | (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/      John daCosta                                   |   |   |   |   |
| John      daCostaChief Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2008 |   |   |   |   |