alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50749 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OLIVO MEJIA-SOLANO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-74-1-AML

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Olivo Mejia-Solano (Mejia) appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 41 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Mejia argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it does not require the fact of a prior felony or aggravated-felonyNo. 04-50749 -2- conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Mejia concedes, this argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and Almendarez-Torres was not overruled by Apprendi

. See United States v. Sarmiento-Funes , 374 F.3d 336, 346 (5th Cir. 2004)

. For the first time on appeal, Mejia argues that, under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (5th Cir. 2005), this court must vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing because the mandatory guideline regime was in place at the time of his sentencing. An unpreserved challenge to the computation of a defendant’s sentence under the formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). The district court’s application of the guidelines in their mandatory form constituted error that is “plain” for purposes of satisfying the first two prongs of the plain error analysis. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005). Mejia also bears the burden of demonstrating “that the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory one--would have reached a significantly different result.” See Mares , 402 F.3d at 521. Mejia has failed to make such a showing. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 3:22-cv-02215-S-BT Document 9 Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0226

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY JAY HILLIOUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is given an extension of 

time until August 5, 2024, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s 

reply brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 24 2024

06/24/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0226
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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 Webb Interactive Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, William R. Cullen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 to the
best of my knowledge:



(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/ William R. CullenWilliam R. CullenChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer




Date: May 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         155,590
<SECURITIES>                                   410,758
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,307
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               657,385
<PP&E>                                       1,439,138
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,131,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,444
<BONDS>                                      1,035,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     965,069
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,131,547
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,844
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,337
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   970
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (44,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,028)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,028)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
#### SHIPP by SHIPP v. McCLANNAHAN, Special Judge, et al.

No. 9833.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

July 17, 1935.

*256E. P. Lipscomb, of San Antonio, for relator.

Saunders, Saunders & Whipple, of San Antonio, for respondents.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Relator has presented his petition for mandamus against the officers of the court to require them to furnish relator with a statement of facts and transcript of the record, upon his affidavit of inability to pay the costs of appeal, or give security therefor, as provided in article 2266, as amended. Acts 1931, 42d Leg., p. 226, ch. 134, § 1 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2266).

It appears from the petition and answer filed in this court that relator filed his affidavit; that respondents timely contested the same by verified answer; that the matter was duly set down for hearing, and that upon the hearing relator excepted to the sufficiency of the controverting affidavit, whereupon, with leave of the court, respondents filed an amended affidavit to the contest, the sufficiency of which amended affidavit relator does not question; that the trial judge heard evidence upon the issues thus raised, resolved those issues against relator, denied the remedy of appeal without bond, and prepared and filed written findings of fact in support of the ruling.

Relator has not brought up any authenticated statement of facts adduced upon the hearing, or transcript of the proceedings, or findings, conclusions, or orders of the trial court. We are of the opinion that:

1. In such proceedings the statutes governing should be liberally construed and enforced in favor of the right of appeal.

2. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to allow amendment to both the affidavit in forma pauperis, and the controverting affidavit of the contestant.

3. While it is the province of the trial judge to determine the facts adduced upon the issues presented in the affidavit and contest, this court may, nevertheless, determine and declare the legal effect of those facts, and render judgment thereon.

4. When the remedy of mandamus is invoked in such cases, it is the duty of relator, where the petition is traversed and the allegations therein denied, to bring up duly authenticated statement of facts and transcript of the proceedings below, including the findings, conclusions, and orders of the trial judge. As this requirement has not been met by relator in this case, there is nothing before this court to support the writ of mandamus.

The petition for mandamus is accordingly denied.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1289 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month 

waiting period in the disability insurance program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2009 

Mr. WILSON of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the five-month waiting period in the disability insurance 

program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Fair5 ness for the Terminally Ill Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TITLE II WAITING PERIOD FOR 

7 TERMINALLY ILL INDIVIDUALS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(a)(1) of the Social 

9 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘In the case of any 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1289 IH

1 application for disability insurance benefits filed by an in2 dividual who is determined to be under a disability and 

3 who has been certified as terminally ill by a physician (as 

4 defined in section 1861(r)(1)), this paragraph shall be ap5 plied without regard to any waiting period. For the pur6 poses of the preceding sentence, an individual is consid7 ered to be terminally ill if the individual has a medical 

8 prognosis that the individual’s life expectancy is 6 months 

9 or less.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall take effect with respect to applications 

12 filed after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1300

ANTHONY CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-4266-AW) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Curtis, Silver Spring, Maryland, Appellant Pro Se. William Charles Dickerson, MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court order was filed January 29, 1999. 2 PER CURIAM:Anthony Curtis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment in Curtis’s racial discrimination action filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Curtis v. Maryland Nat’l Capital Park , No. CA97-4266-AW (D. Md. Feb. 2, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
exv10w2






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated effective May
21, 2003 (the “Agreement”), by and between Quanta Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Employer”), and James H. Haddox (“Employee”), is hereby entered into this 6th day
of November, 2008.



     WHEREAS, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations
promulgated thereunder (collectively, “Section 409A”) require that payments of nonqualified
deferred compensation to “specified employees” be delayed for six months from “separation from
service” (as those terms are defined under Section 409A);



     WHEREAS, Employee is currently identified as a “specified employee” in accordance with
Section 409A;



     WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for the payment of certain severance benefits upon termination
of service, which may be considered nonqualified deferred compensation subject to Section 409A; and



     WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend the terms of the Agreement to comply with
Section 409A.



     NOW, THEREFORE, Employer and Employee agree as follows:



     1. A new paragraph (f) is added to Section 6 of the Agreement to read as follows:




     “(f) Compliance with Section 409A of the Code. Notwithstanding any
other provision to the contrary, if the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Employer (the “Committee”) determines in its discretion
that severance payments due under this Agreement constitute “nonqualified deferred
compensation” subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the “Code”), and that the Employee is a “specified employee” as
defined in Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code and the regulations and other
guidance issued thereunder, then such severance payments shall commence on the first
payroll date of the seventh month following the month in which the Employee’s
termination occurs (with the first such payment being a lump sum equal to the
aggregate severance payments the Employee would have received during the prior
six-month period if no such delay had been imposed). For purposes of this
Agreement, whether the Employee is a “specified employee” will
be determined in accordance with the written procedures adopted by the Committee
which are incorporated by reference herein.”



 - 1 - 









 





     2. Any provisions of the Agreement not specifically amended herein shall remain in full force
and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hand the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYER:



Quanta Services, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ DARREN B. MILLER
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Darren B. Miller 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President – Information

Technology and Administration 	 
	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	 	/s/ JAMES H. HADDOX
 	 
	 	James H. Haddox 	 
	 	 	 



 - 2 -
EXHIBIT 32.2


       GUARDIAN TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection   with  the  Annual  Report  of  Guardian   Technologies
International,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  I, William J. Donovan,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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: April 14, 2004                     Signed: /s/ William J. Donovan
Name: William J. Donovan                         -------------------------------
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors andShareholders 

AVI BioPharma, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-160922, 333-150021, 333-133211, 333-86778, 333-105412, 333-68502,333-45888, 333-138299, 333-93135, and 333-86039) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-101826, 333-49996, 333-49994, and 333-34047) on Form S-8 of AVI BioPharma, Inc. (a developmental stage company) of our report dated March 14, 2011 with respect to thebalance sheets of AVI BioPharma, Inc. as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year periodended December 31, 2010 and the information included in the cumulative from inception presentations for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2010 (not separately presented), and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of AVI BioPharma, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

March 14, 2011
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Mark A Smith, 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |        |  |                        
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2009 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Mark A. Smith      
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Mark A. Smith          
|                   |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2054 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to establish a program to 

provide advance payments under the Emergency Conservation Program 

for the repair or replacement of fencing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2017 

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

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to establish 

a program to provide advance payments under the Emergency Conservation Program for the repair or replacement of fencing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF FENCING 

4 UNDER EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PRO5 GRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 401 of the Agricultural 

7 Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201) is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2054 IS

1 (1) by striking the section designation and all 

2 that follows through ‘‘The Secretary of Agriculture’’ 

3 and inserting the following: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 401. PAYMENTS TO PRODUCERS. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture 

6 (referred to in this title as the ‘Secretary’)’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(b) REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF FENCING.—With 

9 respect to a payment to an agricultural producer under 

10 subsection (a) for the repair or replacement of fencing, 

11 the Secretary shall give the agricultural producer the op12 tion of receiving the payment, determined based on the 

13 applicable percentage of the fair market value of the cost 

14 of the repair or replacement, as determined by the Sec15 retary, before the agricultural producer carries out the re16 pair or replacement.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

18 (1) Sections 402, 403, 404, and 405 of the Ag19 ricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2202, 

20 2203, 2204, 2205) are amended by striking ‘‘Sec21 retary of Agriculture’’ each place it appears and in22 serting ‘‘Secretary’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2054 IS

1 (2) Section 407(a) of the Agricultural Credit 

2 Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2206(a)) is amended by 

3 striking paragraph (4). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 41 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 41

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
      prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other 
  international agreement that would provide for the United States to 
  adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an 
                  entity other than the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2009

 Mrs. Bachmann (for herself, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. 
 Shadegg, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. McClintock, 
    Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Wamp, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Fleming, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Akin, Mr. Issa, Mr. King of Iowa, 
 Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
  Lamborn, Mr. Paul, Mr. Culberson, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Brown of South 
Carolina, Mr. Jones, Mr. Posey, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, and Mr. Conaway) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
      prohibit the President from entering into a treaty or other 
  international agreement that would provide for the United States to 
  adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an 
                  entity other than the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The President may not enter into a treaty or other international 
agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal 
tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than 
the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```