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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20466

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL IBARRA-RAMOS, also known as Miguel Angel Ibarra 

Ramos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-618-1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Miguel Angel Ibarra-Ramos appeals his conviction for illegal reentry into 

the United States. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to 

dismiss the indictment, arguing that the indictment was invalid because the 

notice to appear in his removal proceedings was defective because it failed to 

specify a time and date for his removal hearing, and that the removal order 

 

* 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

November 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20466 Document: 00515212232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
No. 19-20466

2

was thus void. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684, 689-93 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, (Nov. 12, 2019) (19-

6588), and United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), but 

he wishes to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is 

foreclosed under Pierre-Paul and Pedroza-Rocha. Alternately, the Government 

requests an extension of time to file its brief.

In Pedroza-Rocha, this court applied Pierre-Paul to conclude that the

notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did not specify a date for 

the hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had not deprived the immigration 

court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza-Rocha could not collaterally attack his 

notice to appear without first exhausting his administrative remedies. 933 

F.3d at 496-98. Ibarra-Ramos’s arguments are, as he concedes, foreclosed by 

this case. See id. Because the Government’s position “is clearly right as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of 

the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

1969), the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-20466 Document: 00515212232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/25/2019
#### William H. Strickland, sheriff, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Halsted Smith, defendant in error.

A mere notice to the sheriff to retain money collected under legal process, unless accompanied by some lien claiming it, will not justify him s in withholding it from the plaintiff under whose process he received it.

Sheriff. Executions. Lien. Before Judge Schley. Bryan Superior Court. April Term, 1874.

*80For the facts of this case,:see the decision'.'

Charles N. West, by R. H. Clark, for plaintiff in error.

Meld rim & Adams; Halsted Smith, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a rule against the sheriff of Bryan county, calling on him to show cause why he should not pay to Halsted Smith the sum of $372 99. From the sheriff’s answer, the following facts were admitted by him to be. true: That he had an execution in his hands for collection in favor of Poindexter against Henry E. Smith, for about $500 00; that he collected the money due on the execution, and paid the same over.to the plaintiff’s attorney therein; that whilst the execution was in his hands for collection, the plaintiff, Plalsted Smith, notified him, in writing, that he held a claim against Poindexter, and had sued out an attachment against him as a non-resident of the state, and had garnished Henry E. Smith, and also notified him to retain the money which he should collect on the *ft. fa.*in favor of Poindexter against Henry E. Smith, until the November term of the superior court. On this statement of facts the court made the rule absolute against the sheriff for the amount of plaintiff’s claim against Poindexter, the defendant in attachment; whereupon, the sheriff excepted.

In our judgment, the court erred in making the rule absolute against the sheriff, on the statement of facts contained in the record. The sheriff was not bound to retain the money in his hands, collected from Henry E. Smith in favor of Poindexter, on the mere notice of Halsted Smith for the payment of his debt, unaccompanied by any lien on the money. The notice was no lien on the money in the sheriff’s hands; in fact, the plaintiff, at the time of giving the notice, had not obtained judgment on his attachment, and, as the record shows, did not do so until April, 1874. A mere notice to a sheriff to retain money in his hands, collected by him under legal *81process, without such .notice is accompanied by the lien claiming it, will not justify the sheriff in doing so, or excuse him from paying twenty per cent., if the money should be demanded of him by the plaintiff in *fi. fa.,*under the statute.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification
of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002








The
undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB of
Weststar Financial Services Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods
presented therein.








WESTSTAR
      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATIONDate:
      August 12, 2008
            
            By:
            /s/   G. Gordon
      GreenwoodG.
      Gordon GreenwoodPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,132
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,132)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,132)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,132)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                    SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF LINDA BRYSON


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

In connection with the Periodic Report of Quantum Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Linda Bryson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

Date: November 10, 2004          By: /s/ Linda Bryson
                                                               -----------------
                                                               Linda Bryson
                                                        Chief Financial Officer




<PAGE>
EXHIBIT
32.1



|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 Seafarer Exploration Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kyle Kennedy, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 15, 2022 | By: | /s/
    Kyle Kennedy                                                                                                                                                        | 
|-------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                           |     | Kyle
    Kennedy                                                                                                                                                            | 
|                           |     | President,
    Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
    (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and
    acting Principal Accounting Officer) |
LAWRENCE BERKELEY LABORATORY Bldg: 90 Room: 4000 510 486-6493 April 13, 1995

MEMORANDUM TO: Terry Logee, DOE FROM: Isaac Turiel, LBL RE: Meeting with Bob Wisbey, Advance Transformer Co.
On April 11 and 12 1995, Bob Wisbey of Advance Transformer visited the Lawrence Berke le

## y Labor at' `> to cl ari fy ' some me o f the 7

. , 3 _ 1 , 1 9 Q ^ C 1 V AE ATE f1

fA commen t s to or, the fluorescent lamp ballast engineering analysis. Mr. Wisbey was representing the NEMA ballast section . Attendees from LBL were:
Barbara Atkinson Peter Biermayer Jim Logan Francis Rubinstein Isaac Turiel
The items discussed were: 1. Source data for determination of watts, BEF and BF for each lamp/ballast combination 2. Methodology for calculation of normalized fixture watts 3. Three and four-lamp product classes With respect to item 1, we compared the NEMA database to the LBL database. The differences between the databases were found to be slight. The NEMA database will be used for the LBL reanalysis because it is more up to date in terms of excluding ballasts that have been removed from the market. With respect to item 2, we discussed corrections to fixture wattage and light output. The NEMA approach was compared to the revised LBL approach (as developed by Francis Rubinstein). For the example studied, we found that the two approaches yielded similar corrections. We decided to use the LBL approach, which is based on the Advanced Lighting Guidelines. (ALG). LBL will now correct for the impact on light output when various lamp/ballast combinations are placed in a fixture. With respect to item 3, NEMA stated that engineering/economic analysis of 1 and 2-lampApril 13, 1995

ballasts should be performed for these ballasts in 3 and 4-lamp fixtures and that 1 and 2- lamp magnetic ballasts should be compared with 1 and 2-lamp electronic ballasts. LBL stated that they will use the LRI survey to determine market shares of various ballast types and fixture types by number of lamps.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11.1

                                GYNECARE, INC.

                    COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE (1)
                 (amounts in thousands except per share data)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  FOR THE PERIOD FROM
                                            FOR THE              FOR THE              MARCH 8, 1994
                                           YEAR ENDED           YEAR ENDED       (DATE OF INCEPTION) TO
                                        DECEMBER 31, 1996    DECEMBER 31, 1995      DECEMBER 31, 1994
                                        -----------------    -----------------   ----------------------
<S>                                     <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Primary and Fully Diluted:

Weighted average common shares                         
  outstanding for the period                   8,209,000             2,438,000                       --

Common Equivalent Shares pursuant     
  to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83                 --                    --                1,658,000
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------

Shares used in computing net loss per
  share                                        8,209,000             2,438,000                1,658,000
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------

Net loss                                    $(10,200,000)          $(4,566,000)             $(2,069,000)
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------

Net loss per share                          $      (1.24)          $     (1.87)             $     (1.25)
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------
                                            ------------           -----------              -----------

</TABLE>

--------------
(1) Primary and fully diluted calculations are substantially the same.
P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

207) OGRC-S0008 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM Sheet 207 of 259 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVJRpNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OG-RC-SOOOJF 

fJeM & M° 

Honorable Charles W. Stenholm 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Stenholm: 

Thank you for your letter of October 1, 1990, expressing 

your concerns about the potential impacts of the Toxicity 

Characteristic (TC) final rule on crude oil production. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only recently 

become aware of the rule's potential impacts on crude oil 

reclamation activities of the type you describe in your letter. 

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response Don Clay has been briefed on this issue and 

has asked us to examine options for dealing with it. EPA is 

working with the Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC) in this 

regard to collect essential data to determine the extent of the 

problem. 

You should be aware that this issue has implications for 

both the TC and. the completed regulatory determination with 

respect to the scope of the oil exploration and production 

exemption. The regulatory determination specified that the 

exemption applies to wastes generated on or near the well head 

site. Thus, off-site oil reclamation is not covered under the 

exemption and may, if TC hazardous, be subject to the hazardous 

waste regulations. During the public comment process, EPA did 

not receive any comments with respect to this issue on either the 

regulatory determination or the TC rule. 

Please be assured that EPA is actively working- on this issue 

and will dc* its-best to resolve the matter in the very near term. 

Thank you again for your involvement in this issue. I will keep 

you informed?as to any action EPA takes to address your concerns. 

Sincerely yours, 

Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director 

Office of Solid Waste 

OS-305/Petruska/J. O'Callaghan 382-4646/11-02-90/Control No: 

AL904284/DUB Dale: 10-23 °^efiftgl&BAcVs1101110'

 BEMIIICEMa 

EPA Form 1326-1 02-70) *II.S.GP0:1989-624-485/10186 OFFICIAL FtUI COPY
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08630]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, April 
16, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no 
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08630 Filed 4-10-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Owen M. Panner, Senior United States District Judge **

for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAYMOND WILLIAM RONELL, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10383

D.C. No. 1:06-cr-00066-LJO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and PANNER, District Judge. ** 

Raymond W. Ronell, Jr. pleaded guilty and was sentenced for sexual

exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and receipt and distribution of child

pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). We affirm.

FILED

JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Ronell challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Ronell

failed, however, to preserve this issue for appellate review because he pleaded guilty

without a written plea agreement and made no reservation of rights at the plea

hearing. When a defendant pleads guilty without conditions, the plea “constitutes a

waiver of the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all

antecedent constitutional defects.” United States v. Lopez-Armenta, 400 F.3d 1173,

1175 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of Ronell’s appeal.

Ronell also challenges sentencing enhancements based on information the

government obtained after his guilty plea. There is no bar, however, to using afteracquired evidence to enhance a sentence. “The trial judge has always been permitted

to consider the circumstances of the offense together with the character and

propensities of the offender.” United States v. Belgard, 894 F.2d 1092, 1099 (9th

Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISMISSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








I,
      Dr.
      David F. Hostelley, Chief Executive Officer of Organetix, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, that:





(1)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








Date:
      November 20, 2006





/s/
      Dr. David F. Hostelley


Dr.
      David
      F. Hostelley


Chief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PhyMatrix Corp. on Form S-1 (File No. 333-09187) of our report dated March 13,
1997, except as to the information presented in Note 20, for which the date is
April 24, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of PhyMatrix Corp. as of January 31, 1997 and
January 31, 1996, and for the year ended January 31, 1997, and for the one month
period ended January 31, 1996 and the combined financial statements of PhyMatrix
Corp. as of December 31, 1995 and for the year ended December 31, 1995 and the
period ended June 24, 1994 (inception) to December 31, 1994 in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles which reports are included in this
Annual Report in Form 10-K.


Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
April 30, 1997