alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10303

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Michael Steven Smith, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-347-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Michael Steven Smith appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence 

for stealing firearms from a licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(u) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1). First, he challenges the district court’s 

finding, in support of a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(b)(6)(A), that he possessed or transferred a firearm with reason to 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10303 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
No. 23-10303

2

believe it would be transported out of the United States. We review the 

factual finding for clear error. See United States v. Juarez, 626 F.3d 246, 255

(5th Cir. 2010). 

According to Smith, the only evidence supporting the enhancement 

was his statement to investigators that approximately 20 of the 27 stolen 

firearms were “in Mexico, for sure.” He argues that the comment—which 

he deems offhand, hyperbolic, conclusory, and speculative—was insufficient 

to support the significant guidelines enhancement. He further argues that 

the statement was unreliable because of his mental and physical state during 

the interview. Smith also asserts that evidence that he sold stolen firearms 

to a drug dealer who was trafficking kilogram quantities of narcotics and to a 

Hispanic man he suspected was involved with a drug cartel did not support 

the finding. 

Smith’s effort to downplay the significance of his own statement is 

unavailing because he explained to investigators the reasons why he believed 

the guns would be transported to Mexico. The district court was entitled to 

draw the same common-sense inference from the facts that Smith did—that 

there was reason to believe the firearms would be transferred out of the 

United States. See id. at 255-56. The district court’s finding was plausible in 

light of the record as a whole and was not clearly erroneous. See id.

In addition, Smith asserts that Congress exceeded its authority under 

the Commerce Clause by criminalizing the theft of firearms that have 

previously travelled in interstate commerce. However, he correctly concedes 

that the argument is unavailing. See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 

145-46 (5th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10303 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2024
Exhibit21.1MRV COMMUNICATIONS, INC.Subsidiaries of MRV   Subsidiary Name (1) Jurisdiction of Organization Alcadon AB SwedenCharlotte’s Networks, Inc. DelawareCreative Electronic Systems SA SwitzerlandEDSLan SpA ItalyInterdata FranceLuminentOIC, Inc. DelawareMRV Communications – Boston Division, Inc. MassachusettsMRV Communications GmbH GermanyMRV International, Ltd. IsraelTecnonet SpA ItalyTurnKey Communications AG Switzerland *(1)* *In accordance with Instructions (ii) to Exhibit (21) to the Exhibit Table in Item 601 ofRegulation S-K, Registrant has omitted from the above table two domestic and 18 foreignsubsidiaries in the network communications business: one domestic and two foreign subsidiariesin the optical components business: and one foreign subsidiary in the development stageenterprise business.*
81
• 

USCIB: 30/30 

1 01 iJL!il.1.n.n.1 - ~~ "J,Q;,AlZ46B 'f- SEC~FIY mreRM*fl0tf ~D ~--D -r.f[;'fffli~~~~®f+Hl~f:A.~[~\'~J . 

24 

7 July 1953 

APIP!Ef«ljfl} eoetJMENTS eoNTAU~ 

eeeE weRe MATERIAL 

MEMORANDUM FOR M Mfi!MiffliBS OF USCIB: PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h)(2) Subject: U .s J._ __ _.P-OMINT Exchange. 

The enclosure is forwarded for information at 

the request or the Director, NSA. 

. . 

D JONES 

Deputy ~e e Secretary, USCIB 

Enclosure 

Undated Memo for Mbrs or 

USCIB, subject as above. 

USCIB: 30/30 

APPENBEB DOCH~"!ENTS CONTAIN 

eODE WORD MMERhiil 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

TO? SECffflT 
,, Pte6::-~6/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ~ OF USCIB 

SUBJECT: tl'SJ.._ _ __.I CcmNT Exchange 

l. Recent developments in the USJ ··.. !exchange of COMINT 

material indicate it win be necessary to pr0Vi4~ r I 

with additional tra.rr1c; from u.s. sources if the usJ I exchange agreement is to continue in effect. 

__ _.2..., Inasmuch as the material now being received from th$ 

L...-_ ___,fis of considerable value to the u.s. COMINT effort, it is 

considered advisable to extend the exchange arrangements rovid to the. 

-----3~. I I I In addition, the Director 

of Central Intelligence supports the intention to furnish the 

I lwi;tb, the additional material described above, in\ order to 

prevent discontinμaiice of existing u~ 1~rangem.ents in the 

CD.MINT field. 

4. This status report on the progre~s of usJ lcCIMINT 

exchange is intended to keep the Members of USCIB inf'o~ecl on 

the subject. ·. 

Enclosure with USCIB 30/30 dated 7 July 1953. 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h)(2)
Exhibit
32.1

# ZOLL MEDICAL
CORPORATION

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE

# SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

The undersigned officer of ZOLL
Medical Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that, to my knowledge, the
Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 28, 2003 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or filed for any purpose
whatsoever.

Date: December 18, 2003

|      |                                           
|----- | ------------------------------------------
|Name: | /s/ Richard A.Packer                      
|      | Richard A. Packer, Chief Executive Officer

---
Speaker: Elizebeth Friedman 

They were using like honest-to-goodness code systems. They really were too. 

Ten thousand groups in a code that they built up with a language (B% of things) 

to be done, or...or to do with these systems: ordering, and then separating, 

dividing up the liquor on a given ship at a given place, meeting another ship at a 

given place at a given time. Well, we solved an awful lot of stuff and there was 

an awful lot of liquor that was confiscated...found and confiscated on these 

shiploads. And, ah, the trail eventually led—Mind you, now, here we were, way 

up here at St. Pierre and Miquelon coming all the way down here and around the 

Gulf of Florida and over into the Gulf of Mexico and through the Panama Canal, 

and way up to British Vancouver. And it was said that a German...I mean, a 

British naval officer had given them their code...
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Petitioner,

v. No. 96-2469 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; RANALD ARNTZ, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-2839) Argued: June 5, 1997 Decided: August 15, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH, SHAW, FAIRWEATHER & GERALDSON, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Kevin William Grierson, JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: RichardB. Donaldson, Jr., JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, P.C., Newport News, Virginia, for Respondent Arntz.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company appeals anorder of the Benefits Review Board affirming without opinion a decision and order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) awarding benefitsto Ranald Arntz under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. After reviewing extensive and uncontradicted medical evidence indicating no physical cause for Arntz's complaints of pain in his neck and head, the ALJ nevertheless awarded disability benefits. The ALJ based the award upon the testimony of a single physician whose conclusory opinion that Arntz was disabled contradicted the results of numerous diagnostic tests. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the award of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. See See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the award of benefits. REVERSED 2
~ 

REF ID:A72013 ~c j ~,: ;_~ 

1 ) 

- o,,) Ftd 

Pn.tnaor '1. s. Cai.ma 

~'~•~Uos 

TJru.~t7 °'~ Illinola 

Vrb.ana., lllbot• 

Dear~: 

1. le a;re alJ:nBt 8tlrS of .Bob Sha.v ror the enttre ~. 

EG ~d ;--:m ~t1e~ec1 t.'lat J'OU thought 70tt could get hllA 

~ hoU1l0 !or tho oummet". i!e he.I! e. vifo and. 2 children. 

iihat did he marut1 Cu. nu. d.o thia sort of ~? lt 

wuld., <'Jt eour.-e. 'he wah. 8Pt'll'"ec1ated. 

4. Oaeai• I?otr.isus and Iilill.11~ JollJl.aiOn (:for pro~£) 

from 34 can como for tho fUll 1JUl'lliWJl" 1:! you eotlmn-. I 

sM!l Ol:.me 'tor at 1 ea.et e.l.l of Ju.17. Gleason 'lf1 ll COl!iO 

tor August. but I haven't told him JtUt. I ho'~ hie 57 h 

in .Paige• e hands b7 now. It shottl.d be. 

3. lfol2V concur• vith me on nakiti,g e11 otter to Albert 

dhlter:tml U' you concur and. r..t.We tundn. r..e iff an Ausociate 

f'r;>fea=or at 'J. 3. c. la\1. i;pent las~ 78U and llill g-,>Clld 

ne:tt (1) at ~ !nst!tu~o. P.ia Univc.rtlity i'f'.}' in ~Im 

end will s~obablY" be .$£9<'0 next J"l';m1". 

il~ let Die hoer froa ~ if there an al'.Q' hi t;chee aw:h Slil 

Fon 5"1'a, rim•a, etc. ! mil. GOOdin& e co~ o! this to Tu~. 

CCI Dr. fompkta• 

Mr. J'ri edJnaJl / 

3010 (2) 

34 - SO.AMP 

n. A. t3Ilttl2 

Ch.let 

••hemat1cal 

~ 

no..ucm. l'lf.v1e1011 

ud DeYelO'J)!!iiOD.t 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 02-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
----

|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: November 22, 2010 | By:    |  /s/ Paul Burgess                  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Paul Burgess                            |   |
|                    |   | President (principal executive officer) |   |
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.50

                               Amendment No. 3 to
                       1988 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
                       ---------------------------------



     This amendment, dated as of April 19, 2001, amends the BTU International,
Inc. 1988 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"). Terms defined in the Plan
and not otherwise defined herein are used herein as so defined.



                              W I T N E S S E T H
                              -------------------


     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of BTU International, Inc. (the "Company")
has authorized the Plan;

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has reserved shares of the
Company's Common Stock to be issued in accordance with the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Plan, the Board of Directors now
desires to amend certain provisions of the Plan in order to broaden the
eligibility of employees of the Company to participate in the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by striking the word "six" in
the first sentence of Section 3 of the Plan and by inserting in its place the
word "three."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors has caused this Amendment No. 3
to the Plan to be filed with the Plan and has caused the Plan to be amended
hereby.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1667 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the special rules 

for accident and health plans of certain governmental entities, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mrs. MURRAY) 

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

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

the special rules for accident and health plans of certain 

governmental entities, 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. CLARIFICATION OF SPECIAL RULE FOR CER4 TAIN GOVERNMENTAL PLANS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 105(j) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘the taxpayer’’ and inserting ‘‘a 

8 qualified taxpayer’’, and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1667 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘deceased plan participant’s 

2 beneficiary’’ and inserting ‘‘deceased employee’s ben3 eficiary (other than an individual described in para4 graph (3)(B))’’. 

5 (b) QUALIFIED TAXPAYER.—Subsection (j) of section 

6 105 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) QUALIFIED TAXPAYER.—For purposes of 

9 paragraph (1), with respect to an accident or health 

10 plan described in paragraph (2), the term ‘qualified 

11 taxpayer’ means a taxpayer who is— 

12 ‘‘(A) an employee, or 

13 ‘‘(B) the spouse, dependent (as defined for 

14 purposes of subsection (b)), or child (as defined 

15 for purposes of such subsection) of an em16 ployee.’’. 

17 (c) APPLICATION TO POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF

18 STATES.—Paragraph (2) of section 105(j) of the Internal 

19 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

20 (1) by inserting ‘‘or established by or on behalf 

21 of a State or political subdivision thereof’’ after 

22 ‘‘public retirement system’’, and 

23 (2) by inserting ‘‘or 501(c)(9)’’ after ‘‘section 

24 115’’ in subparagraph (B). 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1667 IS

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to payments after the date of the 

3 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      10.25

    AMENDMENT
      TO EXECUTIVE 

    EMPLOYMENT
      AGREEMENT

     

    WHEREAS,
      effective July 31, 2006, CAPITAL GOLD CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
      (“Employer”), and GIFFORD A. DIETERLE, a New York resident (“Executive”),
      entered into an Executive Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”);
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      on
      July
      17, 2008, based on the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the
      Company’s Board of Directors, the Board of Directors increased the salaries of
      our executive officers;

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE, to effectuate the foregoing change in salary for Executive, Employer
      and Executive agree: 

    


    1. Section
      3(a) of the Agreement is amended effective August 1, 2008 and, as amended,
      reads
      as follows:

    


    (a) Base
      Salary.
      As
      compensation for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Employer
      agrees to pay Executive a base salary at an annual rate of not less than
      $287,500 payable in installments in accordance with Employer’s standard payroll
      practices, subject to such payroll and withholding deductions as are required
      by
      law or authorized by Executive. The amount of the base salary shall be reviewed
      periodically and may be increased at the sole discretion of Employer.


    


    2. All
      other
      terms of the Agreement remain the same.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment to the Agreement
      effective July 17, 2008. 

    


    
      	
              EMPLOYER
                :

            
	 
	
              CAPITAL
                GOLD CORPORATION

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
              By:

            	
              s/Jeffrey
                W. Pritchard

            
	 	
              Jeffrey
                W. Pritchard, Vice President

            
	 	 
	 	 
	
              EXECUTIVE:

            
	 
	
              s/Gifford
                A. Dieterle

            
	
              Gifford
                A. Dieterle
SUBJBCT: 
.c,_ 

AFSA-04T/lp 

.2 Septani>er 1950 

MEMORANDWal FOR ADHIBAL STONE v-...e. ~o..f--;-, ~~ ~ 

!EIP SBSREI! 

tlJ>ooc~ .............. SUBJECT1 Amendment ot Agenda of u.s.-British Cmll'erenoe 

l. At the prelimim.ry meeting held Friday afternoon l Septmnber, 

it was agreed to request the permission of AFSAC to add the ASAY 6 1;o 

the .Aganda ot the BRUSA. COMSEC Conference under the heading ot "Working 

Group No. 4 - Voioe Security Systems tor Tactical Purposes. 11 

. 2. Reference is made to AFSA.C 63/5 which was approved at the last 

meeting ot AFSA.C (25 August· 1960) and whioh amended the subjeot Agenda 

to inolude certain ite:ma whoie addition had been requested by. the Air 

Faroe. In approvilJg this paper AF.SAC also approved the following 

paragraphs . 

•as. AFSA.C is reques"ted to approve the addition of the 

. items listed in the Enclosure, and is further requested 

to authorize the u.s. delegation to discuss suoh additioJ:Jal 

items as may be proposed by either the British or u.s. 

delegation which the Director. A.FSA, deems appropria.te• · 

and within the scope ot JCS :zo1.g/2. ti . · 

3e In view of the above para.graph and the agreement that the Y-6 

is an equipment which the Air Foroe will use tor taotioal purposes, 1 t 

is considered that addition ot the Y-6 to the Agenda can be aooomplished. 

without reference to AFSA.C. 

£ .. v~~ 

A. snm:ov 

AFSA-04T 

T0P S-EGRE'T
# CE2004088EN.01054001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/540 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/540

---

(2004/C 88 E/0552)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Signing of the Agadir Agreement

Subject:

The free trade agreement between Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco was signed on 25 February 2004 in the presence of Commissioner Chris Patten. It is known as the Agadir Agreement, in reference to the political declaration of intent issued by these countries in Agadir in May 2001. The agreement is part of the broader objective of partnership between the EU and the countries on the shore of the Mediterranean, envisaged in the Barcelona process launched in 1995, with a view to creating a pan-Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area by 2010.

In this context, can the Commission say what impact it thinks the process will have on Community products of a specifically Mediterranean nature, particularly in Portugal? More specifically, what does it think the impact will be on the fruit and vegetable sector and the canning industry, including fish (sardines, tuna, etc.), particularly in Portugal?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

(27 April 2004)

The Agadir Agreement signed on 25 February 2004, is a free trade agreement between four Mediterranean partners: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. Therefore, the European Union is not part of this Agreement, although it has strongly encouraged its conclusion. Each of these four countries has concluded Association Agreements, including free trade provisions, with the European Union in the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The Agreements with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan are already in force. The Agreement with Egypt should enter into force in the near future although its trade and trade related provisions have been in force since 1 January 2004. The Agadir Agreement should therefore have no direct effect on sectors in the EU.

The policy of the Commission is to promote the conclusion of free trade agreements between Southern Mediterranean partners, so that the North-South economic dimension of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership is complemented with a South-South dimension to further attract investment and promote trade between partners. The Agadir Agreement, in line with this objective, constitutes a positive step in the gradual creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area and should have a positive impact in the trade relations of the four countries concerned, and in the development of economic and trade relations in the whole Euro-Mediterranean region. The Commission follows very closely the impact and developments resulting from the implementation of free trade in the region and is funding a sustainability impact study on the Euro-Mediterranean Free trade Area. The study is in its initial phase, and is intended to produce an overall evaluation of the economic, social and environment sustainability of free trade in the Euro-Mediterranean region.

---
Exhibit 32



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 Quarterly Report of Airguide, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) I, James Frack, President, Treasurer and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant do hereby 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 Registrant.



Date:

July 3, 2006



/s/  James Frack

James Frack

President, Treasurer

& Chief Executive Officer