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

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JESUS AARON BELTRAN-DEL RIO, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 23-3261 

(D.C. No. 6:23-CM-60025-EFM-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

In this bail appeal, the parties have filed a joint motion to remand for the 

district court to hold a detention hearing. We grant the parties’ motion. We remand 

for the district court to hold a detention hearing. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 29, 2023

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 23-3261 Document: 010110976028 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 Page: 1
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Gouverneur Bancorp Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert J. Twyman, Chief Financial 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; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.


             December 23, 2004                   By: /s/ ROBERT J. TWYMAN
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert J. Twyman
                                                     Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofGreenChek Technology Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Lincoln Parke, 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; and                                
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    
| | (2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 20thday of January, 2009.

LINCOLN PARKELincoln ParkeChief Executive Officer














---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 334 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 334

   To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction of the 
   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license projects on fresh 
                     waters in the State of Hawaii.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 1999

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction of the 
   Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license projects on fresh 
                     waters in the State of Hawaii.

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

SECTION 1. PROJECTS ON FRESH WATERS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII.

    Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)) is amended 
in the first sentence by striking ``several States, or upon'' and 
inserting ``several States (except fresh waters in the State of Hawaii, 
unless a license would be required under section 23), or upon''.
                                 <all>
```
^` la C. yuvit 61 c, .. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 21-0004
IN RE PETITION OF DAN STUSEK FOR REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE BAR OF MONTANA 

### JUN 0 1 2721 Bovv,,r. Clerk of Suprern, -- Court State of Montana ORDER

Dan Stusek has petitioned this Court for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana. Stusek voluntarily took inactive bar membership on April 1, 2020. The Petition states that Stusek is not currently subject to disciplinary proceedings, has not committed any acts or omissions sanctionable under the Rules ofProfessional Conduct, been charged with a criminal offense,accrued delinquent debt or filed for bankruptcy, or failed to fulfill the obligations of a public office or professional license other than as an attorney,while not on active status. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Dan Stusek for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar ofMontana is GRANTED. Petitioner shall pay all dues,fees and taxes owing to the State Bar, and shall submit to the Board of Continuing Legal Education,P.O.Box 577,Helena,MT 59624,proofofattendance at fifteen (15)hours of approved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis order to the Petitioner and the State Bar ofMontana. DATED thisl day ofJune,2021.
ChiefJustice
/ 06/01/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0004

# J

. f or...44 3 

# /94 Al „al,.

Justices
Exhibit 32.2Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
of Advant-e Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), the undersigned, James E. Lesch, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certifies 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; 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: August 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Lesch     
|                       |  |     |  | James E. Lesch         
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1018

ROBERT L. SAUNDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LONG BROTHERS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-1628-A)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his civil complaint alleging assault. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Saunders

v. Long Brothers, No. CA-95-1628-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 19, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.**

 

**List of Subsidiaries**

 

1. Magma Design Automation K.K. (Japan) 

 

2. Magma Design Automation Ltd. (United Kingdom) 

 

3. Magma Design Automation Limited GmbH (Germany) 

 

4. Magma Design Automation Ltd. (Israel) 

 

5. Magma Design Automation BV (Netherlands) 

 

6. Magma Korea (Korea) 

 

7. Magma Design Automation Corp. (Canada) 

 

8.Beijing Magma Design Automation, Inc. (Peoples Republic of China) 

 

9. MagmaDesign Automation India Private Limited (India) 

 

10. Magma Taiwan Ltd. (Taiwan)

 

11. Magma Design Automation SARL (France) 

 

12. Magma Services, Inc. (Delaware)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                    EXHIBIT 11
                       TRIGEN ENERGY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                           Computation of Earnings Per Share
             (All amounts in thousands, except share and per share data)

                       Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                          September 30,               September 30,
                     1996              1995       1996           1995      

<S>                 <C>               <C>          <C>             <C>        
 


Earnings Per
Share - Primary

Net income           $2,814            $1,594       $9,493        $6,992
                     ======            ======       ======        ======
Weighted average
number of common
and common
equivalent shares 
applicable to
primary earnings
per share
calculation         11,509,768     11,393,280   11,495,475   11,384,600

Dilutive effect
of stock options        60,460        102,976       60,967       88,519
                    __________     __________   __________   __________

Weighted average
number of shares
outstanding         11,570,228     11,496,256   11,556,442   11,473,119
                    ==========     ==========   ==========   ==========

Net income per
share - primary         $ 0.24         $ 0.14        $0.82       $ 0.61
                    ==========     ==========   ==========   ==========

Earnings Per
Share - Assuming
Full Dilution

Net income              $2,814         $ 1,594     $ 9,493      $ 6,992

Plus: Interest on
convertible
subordinated debt
(net of taxes)           ----              109      ----            326
                     _________         ________    _________  _________ 
            

Net income for
fully diluted 
earnings per share
calculation          $  2,814         $  1,703    $  9,493      $ 7,318


Weighted average
number of common
and common equivalent
shares applicable
to fully diluted
earnings per share
calculation

Weighted average
number of shares
outstanding         11,509,768   11,393,280   11,495,475   11,384,600

Shares issuable
upon conversion of
subordinated debt        ---        225,989        ---        225,989

Dilutive effect of
stock options           98,664      117,821       98,664      117,821
                    __________   __________   __________   __________
                    11,608,432   11,737,090   11,594,139   11,728,410
                    ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Net income per
share assuming full
dilution                $ 0.24       $ 0.15       $ 0.82       $ 0.62
                        ======        ======      ======       ======

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAREN EMELIN OLIVO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70218

Agency No. A094-915-810

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2014** 

Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Karen Emelin Olivo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

FEB 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.

2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Olivo failed to show

the government of El Salvador was unwilling or unable to control the individuals

who harmed her. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1070-72 (9th Cir.

2005) (failure to report non-governmental persecution due to belief that police

would do nothing did not establish that government was unwilling or unable to

control agent of persecution). Accordingly, Olivo’s asylum claim fails.

Because Olivo failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her

claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. 

Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Olivo failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Silaya

v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 09-70218
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20055

Summary Calendar

MELVIN SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRAD LIVINGSTON; WILLIAM H. JONES, III; FERNANDO FUSTER; 

JAQUELIN BROWN; DERRICK WASHINGTON; TAMIKA WILLIAMS; 

GINA D. QUAST; B. BURNETT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CV-2603

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Smith appeals the dismissal, for want of prosecution, of his 28 

U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against various employees of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). The district court 

dismissed the case without prejudice upon finding that Smith had failed to 

timely comply with its previous order to provide a more definite statement of 

 

* 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

March 5, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20055 Document: 00514372788 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2018
No. 17-20055

2

the facts underlying his § 1983 claims. That order instructed Smith to file his 

more definite statement by January 10, 2017. In an uncontroverted sworn 

declaration, Smith asserts that he deposited his statement in the prison mail 

system on January 9, 2017. See Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 379-81 (5th 

Cir. 1995) (prisoner mailbox rule). Furthermore, Smith’s statement was filed 

by the district court clerk on January 12, 2017, within two business days after 

the filing deadline. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 269-76 (1988); Sonnier 

v. Johnson, 161 F.3d 941, 945 (5th Cir. 1998). Under either scenario, Smith’s 

more definitive statement was timely filed. The district court thus abused its 

discretion in dismissing his § 1983 action for want of prosecution. See Larson 

v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1032 (5th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we VACATE the order dismissing Smith’s § 1983 action for 

want of prosecution and REMAND the case to the district court for further 

proceedings.

 Case: 17-20055 Document: 00514372788 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2018
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.3  


 
 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
  TO THE
  RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
  OF
  MICHAELS STORES, INC.    
  


    Michaels Stores, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 


    DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY: 



	 	FIRST:	 	The name of the Corporation is Michaels Stores, Inc.
	 	

SECOND:	
 	

At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on July 23, 2001, resolutions were duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation effective July 26, 2001 setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended (the "Certificate"), declaring the amendment to be advisable and directing that the amendment be considered at the 2001 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation. The resolution
setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:





    "RESOLVED,
that Paragraphs Three and Four of Article Seven of the Certificate be amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: 



    Each
director shall hold office for a term expiring at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation and until his successor is duly elected and qualified or until
the earlier of his resignation, death or removal. 


    Any
vacancies in the Board of Directors for any reason, and any newly created directorships resulting from any increase in the number of directors, will be filled by the Board of
Directors, acting by a
majority of the directors then in office, although less than a quorum, and any director so chosen will hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his successor is duly elected
and qualified or until the earlier of his resignation, death or removal. No decrease in the number of directors will shorten the term of any incumbent director. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and
except as otherwise required by law, whenever the holders of any one or more series of Preferred Stock have the right, voting separately as a class, to elect one or more directors of the Corporation,
the terms of the director or directors elected by such holders will be as provided in the terms of such series." 




	 	THIRD:	 	At the 2001 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation, duly called and held on October 5, 2001, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the
necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.
	 	

FOURTH:	
 	

The amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by Mark V. Beasley, its Secretary, on this 5th day of October, 2001. 



	 	 	MICHAELS STORES, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ MARK V. BEASLEY   
 Mark V. Beasley, Secretary











QuickLinks


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF MICHAELS STORES, INC.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50173

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRIMITIVO MARTINEZ-HUITRON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-264-ALL-LY

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Primitivo Martinez-Huitron 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. 

Martinez-Huitron contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. 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

been alleged in his indictment. Martinez-Huitron maintains that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-50173

-2-

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 two-year maximum term of imprisonment 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. 

Martinez-Huitron acknowledges that his argument is 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 argument 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.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.