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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60118

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DONALD LEE HATHORN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:09-CR-25-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Lee Hathorn, federal prisoner # 10194-043, pleaded guilty to one 

count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was 

sentenced to 106 months of imprisonment. Hathorn moved for a reduction of 

his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the Fair Sentencing 

Act of 2010. The district court granted the motion and reduced his sentence to 

89 months. After an untimely appeal, Hathorn moved the district court to 

* 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

January 10, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-60118 Document: 00512506293 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2014
No. 13-60118

correct a clerical error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. Hathorn 

asserted that the amended presentence report incorrectly calculated his new 

guidelines range and that the district court failed to take the correct range into 

account in reducing his sentence under § 3582. The district court denied the 

motion as being without merit and untimely. The district court denied leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and certified that the appeal was 

not taken in good faith.

Rule 36 provides that the district court “may at any time correct a clerical 

error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the 

record arising from oversight or omission.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 36. A clerical error 

occurs when the court intends to do one thing, but through clerical mistake or 

oversight does another. United States v. Buendia-Rangel, 553 F.3d 378, 379 

(5th Cir. 2008). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Hathorn’s Rule 36 motion. See United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 188 (5th 

Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny Hathorn’s motion for leave to appeal IFP, and 

we dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th 

Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2

 Case: 13-60118 Document: 00512506293 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2014
FRED H. PERDUE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2669

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Fred H. Perdue, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
* 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 December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50667 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CONCEPCION LOPEZ-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-716-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Concepcion Lopez-Mejia 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. Lopez-Mejia 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. Lopez-Mejia maintains that heNo. 03-50667 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment and supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Lopez-Mejia 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.
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM








LightPath Technologies,
Inc.


Orlando, Florida





We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-23515, 333-23511,
333-41705, 333-92017, 333-121389, 333-121385, 333-96083, 333-50976, 333-50974
and 333-155044) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-113814, 333-37443, 333-39641,
333-47905, 333-86185,  333-93179, 333-94303, 333-31104, 333-37622,
333-47992, 333-51474, 333-75528, 333-127053, 333-133772, 333-146550 and
333-159063) on Form S-3 of our report dated September 25, 2009 relating to
the consolidated financial statements ofLightPath Technologies, Inc. appearing
in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year endedJune 30, 2009.








/s/ Cross, Fernandez & Riley,
LLP


Cross, Fernandez & Riley,
LLP


Certified Public
Accountants





Orlando, Florida


September 25, 2009
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-10931 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cr-00029-RH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANTHONY MERCADO-CINTRON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(November 10, 2016)

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Richard M. Summa, appointed counsel for Jose Anthony Mercado-Cintron

in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation 

Case: 16-10931 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Mercado-Cintron’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-10931 Date Filed: 11/10/2016 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

GALAGEN INC.

STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                           ----------------- ------------------ -----------------
                                                                1999               1998               1997
                                                           ----------------- ------------------ -----------------
BASIC LOSS PER SHARE:
<S>                                                   <C>                <C>                     <C>

Weighted average shares outstanding                        9,957,306             8,067,564             7,184,722
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========

Net loss applicable to common stockholders               $(2,596,203)          $(4,520,229)          $(5,635,134)
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========

Basic net loss per share                                 $      (.26)          $      (.56)          $      (.78)
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========


DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE:

Weighted average shares outstanding                        9,957,306             8,067,564             7,184,722

Dilutive potential common shares                                   -                     -                     -
                                                         -----------           -----------           -----------
Total                                                      9,957,306             8,067,564             7,184,722
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========

Net loss applicable to common stockholders               $(2,596,203)          $(4,520,229)          $(5,635,134)
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========

Diluted net loss per share                               $      (.26)          $      (.56)          $      (.78)
                                                         ===========           ===========           ===========
</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATIONS                                           Exhibit 31.6**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preston Romm

    Vice President of Finance and

    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

SOHU.COM 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 Quarterly Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Zhang, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 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 of the Company as of June 30, 2010 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2010.



/s/ Charles ZhangCharles ZhangChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of DirectorsAugust 5, 2010
r^GREATE R SARASOT A COMMERC E SAKASOT ACOUNCI L GOVERNMENTA L ISSUE S COUNCI L 

# %CHAMBER-,,„„,,„

_^ - ..^

. lll o f C o m m e r e e L •"•.'-,1 1 (McN TO F LEADERSHI P SARASOT ACOUNT Y 

# ,7!ANSP0RWI0 N '""OPERATION S MEMBERSHI P BENEFIT S AEVENT S COUNCI L SMAL L BUSINES S COUNCI L YOUN G PROFESSIONAL S GROU P

.•'- . I \ L 

## ZOi l m3 I 

## A '••3 1 Date : Septembe r21 , 201 0 U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatio n Ms . Brook e Chapma n Transportatio n Industr yAnalys t 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve . S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Re : Sarasot a Bradento n Internationa l Applicatio n fo rSmal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Grant , Docke t DOT-OST-2010-012 4 Dea rMs . Chapman , Th e Greate rSarasota Chambe ro fCommerc e (GSCC ) wishe s t o expres s it s stron g suppor t fo rth e Sarasota Manate e Airpor t Authority' s gran t application , unde rDOT-OST-2010-0124 , t o th e U.S . Departmen t o fTransportation . Bywa yo fbackground , ou rChambe ri s th e oldes t an d larges t busines s . organization s base d i n Sarasota . Th e boar d an d member s o fth e GSC C full ysuppor t th e Sarasota Manate e Airpor t Authority' s gran t applicatio n fo rfundin g t o increas e an d strengthe n airpor t marketin g initiatives . W e believ e tha t th e nee d exist s becaus e o fth e unusua l circumstance s wit h th e B P oi l spil l i n th e Gul fo fMexico . Th e spil l ha s resulte d i n a dro p o fGul fcoas t touris m an d negativ e impac t o n man ycommunit ybusinesses . Awardin g th e gran t requeste d i s critica l t o ou rairport' s movin g toward s returnin g passenge rlevel s an d traveler s t o histori clevel s fo rth e wes t coas t o fFlorida . Further , w e full ysuppor t th e awar d o fgran t fund s fo rth e purchas e o fairpor t groun d handlin g equipmen t (GSE ) tha t wil l allo wfo rlowe roperatin g cost s ar e ou rairport , an d thereb ybrin g ou rairpor t an d communit yint o a mor e competitiv e positio n whe n compare d wit h large rairport s i n th e region . W e appreciat e you rincludin g thi s lette rwit h th e Sarasot a Manate e Gran t Application , an d considerin g ou rsuppor t whe n evaluatin g thei rapplication . Sincerely , Stev e Queior , CCE , Presiden t Th e Greatel - Sarasot a Chambe ro fCommerc e

194 5 Fruitvili e Roa d • Sarasota , P L 3423 6 • 941-955-818 7 - Fa x941-366-562 1 • www.sarasotachamber.co m
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2014 - 0478 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 017 - AD Helicopter Model: AgustaWestland S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 102 Helicopters in the U . S . Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect excessive play of the l ower half scissor spherical bearing and prevent failure of the main rotor r otating s cissors and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicop ter $ 808 for replacing one bearing Labor per Helicopter (Minimal amount of time for the inspection for play of the bearing) ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for the detailed inspection ) (2 work- hours x $85/workhour for removing a bearing) Nominal co st per inspection $ 85 per detailed inspection $170 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter Nominal cost per inspection for play of the bearing $85 per detailed inspection $978 for replacing one bearing Total US Fleet Cost $ 99,756 for replacin g one bearing Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the A D have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SAMMONS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

RINO INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15275

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00574-GMNVCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Sammons appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his diversity action seeking the 

appointment of a receiver. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 15-15275 

review de novo, Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015), and we 

reverse and remand.

The district court dismissed Sammons’s action for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction because it concluded that Sammons did not plead an amount in 

controversy over $75,000. However, Sammons’s proposed First Amended 

Complaint alleges that Rino International Corporation holds ownership interests in 

foreign companies, previously valued at $258 million, which makes his 

shareholder interest worth more than $75,000. Based on those allegations, it 

cannot be determined to a legal certainty that Sammons failed to meet the amount 

in controversy requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Naffe, 789 F.3d at 1039-40 

(setting forth elements of diversity jurisdiction and explaining that the “legal 

certainty” test requires a “district court [to] accept the amount in controversy 

claimed by the plaintiff unless it can declare to a legal certainty that the case is 

worth less”); see also Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. 

Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the legal certainty test, “a 

federal court has subject matter jurisdiction unless upon the face of the complaint, 

it is obvious that the suit cannot involve the necessary amount” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and 
 3 15-15275 

remand for further proceedings. 

Sammons’s motion to submit the case on the briefs, filed on February 21, 

2015, and his motion to submit the case to a screening panel, filed on February 24, 

2015, are granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website
(r eleased the week prior to April 20, 2021 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :

A

- 20

- 614 State on behalf of Lorelia S. v. Rachel. S.

A

- 20

- 688, A

- 20

- 690 Mitchell v. Mitchell

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

. Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.
JOHN BARNER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5354

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed June 20, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. David P. Kreider , Judge

.

John Barner, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahasse e , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS

, WETHERELL

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                                  18,874
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          141,501                                        
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       157,375
<PP&E>                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         157,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   21,467
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                 1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                             134,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           157,375
<SALES>                                                  3,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3,038
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        2,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           804
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       804
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0

<NET-INCOME>                                              804
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
           
   
</TABLE>
NUMBERS 13-08-00233-CV, 13-08-00234-CV, 13-08-00235-CV,

& 13-08-00236-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF E.N., JR., E.N., J.L.P., AND A.S., 

THE PROPOSED WARDS

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the Probate Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Raquel Perez, has filed motions in each of these causes to dismiss these

appeals for mootness. According to her motions, the controversies between the parties

ended on April 25, 2008, after notices of appeal were filed, when the trial court, on its own

motion, signed revised orders. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss these appeals.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motions to

dismiss the appeals, is of the opinion that the motions should be granted. See TEX.R.APP.

P. 42.1(a). The motions to dismiss are granted, and the appeals are hereby DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 10th day of July, 2008.