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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 February 23, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT3

No. 05-40463 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO ROMERO-MONTIEL, also known as Roberto Romero, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-1726-ALL

-------------------- Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto Romero-Montiel appeals his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempting to illegally re-enter the United States after having been deported. Romero-Montiel argues that the district court erred in ordering, as a condition of supervised release, that he cooperate with the probation officer in the collection of DNA. His claim is not ripe for judicial review in light of our holding in United States v. Riascos-Cuenu , 428 F.3d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filedNo. 05-40463 -2- (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Romero-Montiel also argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. His challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United
States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Romero-Montiel contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Romero-Montiel properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2245 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2245

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To include New Zealand in the list of foreign states whose nationals are 
      eligible for admission into the United States as E-1 and E-2 
 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the 
                       Government of New Zealand.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Knowledgeable Innovators and Worthy 
Investors Act'' or the ``KIWI Act''.
SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS.
    For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of section 101(a)(15)(E) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), New 
Zealand shall be considered to be a foreign state described in such 
section if the Government of New Zealand provides similar nonimmigrant 
status to nationals of the United States.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT 21.01**

**List of Subsidiaries of Ambac Financial Group, Inc.**

The following is a list of significantand other subsidiaries of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. The state of incorporation of each subsidiary is included in parentheses after its name. 

**AmbacAssurance Corporation** (Wisconsin) 

**Ambac Assurance UK Limited**(United Kingdom Insurance Company)****

**Ambac Capital Corporation** (Delaware) 

**Ambac Capital Funding,Inc.** (Delaware) 

**Ambac Credit Products, LLC** (Delaware) 

**Ambac Investments, Inc.** (Delaware) 

**Ambac Financial Services, LLC** (Delaware) 

**Ambac Capital Services, LLC** (Delaware) 

**Everspan FinancialGuarantee Corp.**(Wisconsin)****
EXHIBIT 23

                     Consent of Independent Auditors
<PAGE>
                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of Union National Financial Corporation of our
report dated January 15, 1998, except for Note 17, as to which
the date is February 6, 1998, included in the 1997 Annual Report
to Stockholders of Union National Financial Corporation.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements No. 33-80093,  and 333-27837, of Union
National Financial Corporation and in the related Prospectus of
our report dated January 15, 1998, except for Note 17, as to
which the date is February 6, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Union National Financial
Corporation Incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                 /s/ Trout, Ebersole & Groff, LLP
                                 ________________________________
March 26, 1998                   TROUT, EBERSOLE & GROFF, LLP
Lancaster, Pennsylvania          Certified Public Accountants

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES
                                      CODE

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of CITGO Petroleum Corporation (the "Registrant"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 of
the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: August 11, 2005                            /s/ Larry E. Krieg
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Name: Larry E. Krieg
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
/**
 * @file
 * Adds a summary of a details element's contents to its summary element.
 */
(($, Drupal) => {
  /**
   * The DetailsSummarizedContent object represents a single details element.
   *
   * @constructor Drupal.DetailsSummarizedContent
   *
   * @param {HTMLElement} node
   *   A details element, the summary of which may have supplemental text.
   *   The supplemental text summarizes the details element's contents.
   */
  function DetailsSummarizedContent(node) {
    this.$node = $(node);
    this.setupSummary();
  }

  $.extend(
    DetailsSummarizedContent,
    /** @lends Drupal.DetailsSummarizedContent */ {
      /**
       * Holds references to instantiated DetailsSummarizedContent objects.
       *
       * @type {Array.<Drupal.DetailsSummarizedContent>}
       */
      instances: [],
    },
  );

  $.extend(
    DetailsSummarizedContent.prototype,
    /** @lends Drupal.DetailsSummarizedContent# */ {
      /**
       * Initialize and setup summary events and markup.
       *
       * @fires event:summaryUpdated
       *
       * @listens event:summaryUpdated
       */
      setupSummary() {
        this.$detailsSummarizedContentWrapper = $(
          Drupal.theme('detailsSummarizedContentWrapper'),
        );
        this.$node
          .on('summaryUpdated', $.proxy(this.onSummaryUpdated, this))
          .trigger('summaryUpdated')
          .find('> summary')
          .append(this.$detailsSummarizedContentWrapper);
      },

      /**
       * Update summary.
       */
      onSummaryUpdated() {
        const text = this.$node.drupalGetSummary();
        this.$detailsSummarizedContentWrapper.html(
          Drupal.theme('detailsSummarizedContentText', text),
        );
      },
    },
  );

  /**
   * Adds a summary of a details element's contents to its summary element.
   *
   * @type {Drupal~behavior}
   *
   * @prop {Drupal~behaviorAttach} attach
   *   Attaches behavior for the details element.
   */
  Drupal.behaviors.detailsSummary = {
    attach(context) {
      DetailsSummarizedContent.instances =
        DetailsSummarizedContent.instances.concat(
          once('details', 'details', context).map(
            (details) => new DetailsSummarizedContent(details),
          ),
        );
    },
  };

  Drupal.DetailsSummarizedContent = DetailsSummarizedContent;

  /**
   * The element containing a wrapper for summarized details content.
   *
   * @return {string}
   *   The markup for the element that will contain the summarized content.
   */
  Drupal.theme.detailsSummarizedContentWrapper = () =>
    `<span class="summary"></span>`;

  /**
   * Formats the summarized details content text.
   *
   * @param {string|null} [text]
   *   (optional) The summarized content text displayed in the summary.
   * @return {string}
   *   The formatted summarized content text.
   */
  Drupal.theme.detailsSummarizedContentText = (text) =>
    text ? ` (${text})` : '';
})(jQuery, Drupal);
*Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-10288

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN DARWIN EADS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-368-E

_________________________________________________________________

January 13, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Eads (# 95443-131) has appealed the district court’s

denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and coram nobis relief relative to his

conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). He has served

his sentence for this offense, but he contends that the conviction

has adversely affected the federal bank robbery sentence that he is

now serving and that it has other adverse consequences.
-2-

This action actually is one for § 2255 relief from the

sentence for the bank robbery conviction. See Meleng v. Cook, 490

U.S. 488, 491-94 (1989). The district court did not err in denying

§ 2255 relief because Eads failed to show that his bank robbery

sentence was adversely affected by the prior conviction. See

Hendrix v. Lynaugh, 888 F.2d 336, 337-38 (5th Cir. 1980) (28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas corpus case). Eads is not entitled to corum nobis

relief relative to the § 1202(a) conviction because, even were that

conviction declared invalid, it would have no effect on his current

sentence. The enhancement of his bank robbery sentence was based

on his committing that offense while released on bond for his §

1202(a) offense, not for the conviction itself. Eads has not shown

that he is “suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the {§

1202(a)] conviction[].” See United States v. Castro, 26 F.3d 557,

559 (5th Cir. 1994). For these reasons, the district court’s

denial of relief is

A F F I R M E D.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-71346) pertaining to the Amended andRestated 1991 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.33-71350) pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 33-80213) pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, inthe Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-80215) pertaining to the 1995 StockOption Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16349) pertainingto the 1996 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-28971) pertaining to the Houston Biotechnology Incorporated ReplacementStock Option Plan, the Houston Biotechnology Incorporated 1994A Stock OptionPlan, and the Houston Biotechnology Incorporated 1992 Subordinated Stock OptionPlan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86117) pertaining to the1997 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86119)pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-39084) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-55222) pertaining to the 2000Non-Director/Officer Employee Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-55224) pertaining to the 2001 Non-Director/Officer EmployeeStock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-72154)pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-101698) pertaining to the 2002 New Employee Stock Option Plan, inthe Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-91394) pertaining to the 2002Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-91392) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-108294) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan,the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-121387) pertaining to the 2004 NewEmployee Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-121388) pertaining to the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125444) pertaining to the 2005 EquityIncentive Plan of our reports dated March 3, 2006, except for Note 18, as towhich the date is February 2, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Medarex, Inc., Medarex, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Medarex, Inc. included in thisAmended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2005.
|                       | /s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
| MetroPark, New Jersey |                                             |
| February 9, 2007      |                                             |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

November 25, 2015

a1118 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2015

151556

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151556

COA: 326205

Kent CC: 14

- 004338

- FH

ARTHUR LEE BROYLES,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is consi dered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305 ( H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Kent Circuit Court’s order denying the

defendant’s motion for plea withdrawal and/or to correct an invalid sentence and we

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court. That court shall treat the def endant’s

January 26, 2015 supplemental brief and February 20, 2015 supplemental motion as

timely filed and evaluate the defendant’s issues on the merits. The defendant’s attorney

acknowledges that the defendant did not contribute to the delay in filing a proper motion

and admits her sole responsibility for the error. Because a motion to withdraw a plea or

correct an invalid sentence is a prerequisite to substantive review on direct appeal under

MCR 6.310 and MCR 6.429, the defendant was effectively depriv ed of his direct appeal

as a result of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v Flores

Ortega

, 528 US 470, 477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United

States, 526 US 23, 28; 119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999).

Costs are imposed against the attorney, only, in the amount of $500, to be paid to

the Clerk of this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. TIMOTHY SMITH, a/k/a Little Boo , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00220

- D

- 2 )

Submitted : January 22, 2019 Decided: January 25, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Timothy Smith, Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Smith appeals the district court’s order denying Smith’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines . Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on the serio us risk a reduction in Smith ’s sentence would pose to public safety. See United States v. Smalls , 720 F.3d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Whether to reduce a sentence and to what extent is a matter with in the district court’s discretion.”). Accordingly, we a ffirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Smith , No. 5:12

- cr 00220

- D

- 2 (E.D.N.C. May 19, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
| **Segment and Revenue Information - Narrative (Details)** | 9 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Segment Reporting [Abstract]**                          |           |
| Number of reportable segments                             | 1              |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Number of segments reported by the entity. A reportable segment is a component of an entity for which there is an accounting requirement to report separate financial information on that component in the entity's financial statements.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 280 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 18 -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482810/280-10-50-18
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_NumberOfReportableSegments**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_SegmentReportingAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      66,539,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,860,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                490,044,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                  1,029,232,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                 10,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,673,953,000
<DEPOSITS>                               1,371,415,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                85,169,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         18,243,000
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,250,000
<COMMON>                                       200,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 159,676,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,673,953,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             43,566,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           15,689,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               477,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            59,732,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          26,252,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          28,318,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       31,414,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,360,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           2,824,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             24,691,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,758,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  14,758,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,891,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.17
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,714,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,532,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               446,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            10,116,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,011,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   391,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           10,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        10,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>