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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00048-Z-BR

§

HECTOR PATRICIO GALVAN (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

HECTOR PATRICIO GALVAN (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining HECTOR PATRICIO GALVAN (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned 

in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by 

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea 

of guilty be accepted, and that HECTOR PATRICIO GALVAN (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2) - CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: August 8, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00048-Z-BR Document 30 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
* 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

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40999

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO ESPARZA-MACIAS, also known

as Alex Casa-Olmedo, also known as

Roberto Romo-Macias,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-118-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Roberto Esparza-Macias 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. 

Esparza-Macias 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
No. 02-40999

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Esparza-Macias maintains 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. 

Esparza-Macias 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.
#### Charles Fishman, Respondent, v Pearl Fishman, Also Known as Pearl Brettschneider, et al., Defendants, and Seymour Brown, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to compel the distribution of an escrow account, and to recover damages for fraud, the defendant Seymour Brown appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated April 25, 1989, which denied his motion to vacate his default in responding to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated September 1, 1989, as, upon renewal, adhered to the prior determination.

*419Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 25, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated September 1, 1989, made upon renewal; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated September 1, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the default *(see, e.g., Burks v Weiss,*137 AD2d 646; *Hargett v Health & Hosp. Corp.,*88 AD2d 633). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
|  | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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. |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Pedro Larrea Paguaga                              |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |
| By:    | /s/ Joseph Ragan                                                                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
Case 4:22-cr-00035-Y Document 62 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 119
Case 4:22-cr-00035-Y Document 62 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 120
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANTHONY FAILS,

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v. Case No. 3:22-CV-0996-X-BK

IRS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff Anthony Fails, an inmate in 

the Florida Department of Correction (“FDOC”), filed suit in forma pauperis against

the IRS and FDOC. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the “three-strike” provision 

of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), bars Fails from proceeding 

in this action in forma pauperis. Section 1915(g) provides that a prisoner may not 

bring a civil action in forma pauperis if that prisoner has, on three or more prior 

occasions while incarcerated, “brought an action or appeal in a court of the United 

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under 

imminent danger of serious physical injury.”1 The Magistrate Judge found that Fails 

1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 3:22-cv-00996-X-BK Document 19 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 65
2

has accrued three strikes under § 1915(g) and that “his complaint is wholly devoid of 

any allegation of imminent danger of serious physical injury.”2

Fails filed objections, arguing that § 1915(g) is inapplicable to the present 

action because it applies only to claims for monetary, not injunctive, relief, and he is 

only seeking injunctive relief.

3 Fails’s assertion that § 1915(g) does not bar claims for 

injunctive relief is baseless. Section 1915(g) applies to all “civil action[s]” and the 

statute makes no distinction between claims for monetary relief and claims for 

injunctive relief.4 Fails does not respond to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that 

he accrued three strikes and failed to allege imminent danger of serious physical 

injury as required by § 1915(g). Nor does it provide any support for the assertion that 

§ 1915(g) does not apply to this action. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Fails’s

objection.

The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the 

remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. 

Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge. [Doc. No. 13]. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES Fails’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES

WITH PREJUDICE this action.

2 Doc. No. 13 at 2.

3 Doc. No. 17 at 2.

4 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 3:22-cv-00996-X-BK Document 19 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 66
3

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 15th day of February, 2023.

__________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00996-X-BK Document 19 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 67
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

S.James Miller, Chief Executive Officer of ImageWare Systems, Inc. (the “Company”),and Wayne Wetherell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the period ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

**2**. The information contained in theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theCompany at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly Report and theresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by the QuarterlyReport.

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 20th day of May, 2008.

 
|       | /s/    S.  James Miller |                                              |
|------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **S.  James Miller**                        |                                              |
| ** ** | **Chief  Executive Officer**                |                                              |
|       |                                        |                                              |
|       | /s/    Wayne  Wetherell |                                              |
| ** ** | **Wayne  Wetherell**                        |                                              |
| ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**                |                                              |
|       | ** **                                  | **(Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer)** |
|            |                                             |                                                   |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWareSystems, Inc. and will be retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO THE

 VIZIO, INC. 

2007 INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN 

This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”) to the VIZIO, Inc. 2007 Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”), is
adopted by VIZIO, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), effective as of June 21, 2010, subject to approval by the shareholders of the Company within twelve (12) months of such adoption by the Board of Directors
of the Company (the “Board”). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 

RECITALS 
 A.
Section 2.1(a) of the Plan provides that the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued or transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan shall be 116,210 shares of Common Stock. 

B. Section 12.1 of the Plan provides that the Board may amend or modify the Plan at any time, provided, however, that to
the extent necessary to comply with any applicable law, the Company must obtain shareholder approval of any Plan amendment as required. 

C. The Board believes it to be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the Plan to increase the maximum aggregate
number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued or transferred pursuant to Awards under the Plan pursuant to Section 2.1(a) of the Plan, subject to approval by the shareholders of the Company within twelve (12) months of such adoption
by the Board. 
 AMENDMENT 
  

	 	1.	Subject to approval by the shareholders of the Company, Section 2.1(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by striking “116,210” and replacing it with “136,210”. 


 

	 	2.	No awards shall be granted pursuant to the increase in shares of Common Stock under this Amendment unless and until the Company’s shareholders approve this Amendment. 


 

	 	3.	Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Plan and each award agreement to be entered into pursuant thereto, shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 


 

	 	4.	 This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under, and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws, and not the laws relating to
conflicts or choice of laws, 










	 	 
of the State of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly within the State of California. 



 

	 	5.	In the event the shareholders of the Company fail to approve this Amendment within twelve (12) months of the adoption of the Amendment by the Board, this Amendment shall be null and void and of no further force or
effect. 

 ************************************** 

I hereby certify that this Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of VIZIO, Inc. on June 21, 2010. 

I hereby certify that this Amendment was duly adopted by the shareholders of VIZIO, Inc. by written consent on June 22, 2010. 

Executed this 22nd day of June, 2010. 
  

			
	VIZIO, INC.
	a California Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William Wang

		 	William Wang
		 	Chairman & Chief Executive Officer



  
 2
# Official Journal C 187A/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.187.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 187A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5527 June 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2012.187.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 187A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5527 June 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 187A/01 | Vacancy for a Director (grade AD 14) of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy — COM/2012/10331 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2012/C 187A/01

Vacancy for a Director (grade AD 14) of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy — COM/2012/10331

1

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 8 | (DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 10 | |
| 17 | (LT) |
| 20 | (EN) |
| 22 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (FR) |
| 31 | (ES) |
| 37 | |
| 44 | |
| 46 | |
| 53 | |
| 55 | |
| 59 | |
| 69 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 70 | (EL) |
| 71 | (ES) |
| 74 | (HU) |
| 75 | (NL) |
| 76 | |
| 77 | (RO) |
| 84 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 86 | |
| 90 | (EN) |
| 101 | |
| 110 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 114 | |
| 121 | (BG) |
| 122 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | (PT) |
| 140 | |
| 144 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 146 | (CS/DA) |
| 160 | |
| 161 | |
| 169 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 180 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 187 | |

8

(DA/EL/HU/IT/MT/PL)

10

17

(LT)

20

(EN)

22

(DE/EN/FR)

27

30

(FR)

31

(ES)

37

44

46

53

55

59

69

(DE/EN/FR)

70

(EL)

71

(ES)

74

(HU)

75

(NL)

76

77

(RO)

84

(DE/EN/FR)

86

90

(EN)

101

110

(DE/EN/FR)

114

121

(BG)

122

134

136

(PT)

140

144

(DE/EN/FR)

146

(CS/DA)

160

161

169

(DE/EN/FR)

180

(DE/EN/FR)

187

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

WESLEY HATTEN-LOVETT,

Plaintiff. 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0100-P

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton made Findings, 

Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case on June 6,

2022. ECF No. 6. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s 

FCR is ripe for review. The undersigned reviewed the FCR for plain 

error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Conclusions as its own. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant in the instant case are hereby DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 

SO ORDERED on this 27th day of June, 2022.

______________________________

Mark T. Pittman

United States District Judge

Case 4:22-cv-00100-P Document 7 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 19
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 184

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weekend of October 15–16, 1994, as ‘‘Small

Towns and Townships Weekend’’.

Whereas small towns and townships have been the spirit and

backbone of this great Nation and have provided many

common, traditional ideals and values throughout our

history;

Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the importance of

small towns and townships in the development of a sense

of community and to highlight the spirit of small towns

and townships;
2

HJ 184 EH

Whereas it is vital to unify residents of small towns and

townships in the process of revitalizing their own community and reinvigorating small-town life; and

Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the

importance of small towns and townships and a weekend

set aside for activities that are most commonly associated

with small towns and townships, such as town festivals,

family picnics, and baseball games: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the weekend of October 15–16, 1994, is designated

4 as ‘‘Small Towns and Townships Weekend’’, and the

5 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama6 tion calling on the people of the United States to observe

7 such weekend with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 184

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weekend of October 15–16, 1994,

as ‘‘Small Towns and Townships Weekend’’.
# Official Journal C 96/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 96 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6324 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 96

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6324 March 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 96/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9715 — PCG/PCC/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2020/C 96/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9684 — Parks Bottom/Omers/Accor/Fairmont Hotels) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2020/C 96/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9659 — Telia Company/CapMan AIFM/JV) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2020/C 96/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2020/C 96/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9754 — KII/Infor) (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 96/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9715 — PCG/PCC/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2020/C 96/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9684 — Parks Bottom/Omers/Accor/Fairmont Hotels) (
  1
  )

1

2

2020/C 96/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9659 — Telia Company/CapMan AIFM/JV) (
  1
  )

1

3

2020/C 96/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur) (
  1
  )

1

4

2020/C 96/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9754 — KII/Infor) (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 96/06 | Euro exchange rates — 23 March 2020 | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 96/06

Euro exchange rates — 23 March 2020

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN