alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50946 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LORENZO HERNANDEZ-ALVAREZ, also known as Juan Torres-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1060-ALL-EP

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Hernandez-Alvarez 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. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Hernandez-Alvarez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.No. 02-50946 -2- Alternatively, Hernandez-Alvarez 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 was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
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. Hernandez-Alvarez acknowledges that his arguments are 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 arguments 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.
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 86 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of a rule submitted by the Department of Justice relating 

to ‘‘Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2022 

Mrs. MCCLAIN (for herself, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. 

BILIRAKIS, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. BUDD, 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. HARRIS, Mrs. 

HARTZLER, Mr. HICE of Georgia, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. 

LAMBORN, Mr. LONG, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mrs. MILLER

of Illinois, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. ROSENDALE, Ms. 

STEFANIK, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TIFFANY, 

Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. KELLER, Mr. DUNN, Mr. FULCHER, Mr. MOORE of 

Alabama, Mrs. FISCHBACH, and Mr. BABIN) submitted the following joint 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the 

Department of Justice relating to ‘‘Definition of ‘Frame 

or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:58 May 06, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ86.IH HJ86

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 86 IH 

1 partment of Justice relating to ‘‘Definition of ‘Frame or 

2 Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms’’ (published at 87 

3 Fed. Reg. 24652 (April 26, 2022)), and such rule shall 

4 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
H. R. 1082 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To study the incidence of fatal and non-fatal assaults in TNC and for-hire vehicles 

in order to enhance safety and save lives. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sami’s Law’’. 

SEC. 2. GAO STUDY ON INCIDENCE OF FATAL AND NON-FATAL PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ASSAULT OF PASSENGERS, TNC DRIVERS, 

AND DRIVERS OF OTHER FOR-HIRE VEHICLES. 

(a) GAO REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report 

that includes the results of a study regarding— 

(1) the incidence of fatal and non-fatal physical assault 

and sexual assault perpetrated in the preceding 2 calendar 

years (starting with calendar years 2019 and 2020 for the 

first study)— 

(A) against TNC drivers and drivers of other for-hire 

vehicles (including taxicabs) by passengers and riders of 

for-hire vehicles; and 

(B) against passengers and riders by other passengers 

and TNC drivers or drivers of other for-hire vehicles 

(including taxicabs), including the incidences that are committed by individuals who are not TNC drivers or drivers 

of other for-hire vehicles but who pose as TNC drivers 

or drivers of other for-hire vehicles; 

(2) the nature and specifics of any background checks conducted on prospective TNC drivers and drivers of other forhire vehicles (including taxicabs), including any State and local 

laws requiring those background checks; and 

(3) the safety steps taken by transportation network companies and other for-hire vehicle services (including taxicab 

companies) related to rider and driver safety. 
H. R. 1082—2 

(b) SEXUAL ASSAULT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘sexual 

assault’’ means the occurrence of an act that constitutes any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, Tribal, or State law, 

including when the victim lacks capacity to consent. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 01, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 01, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0127. JENA DENNIS PINDER v. SAMUEL DWAYNE PINDER.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2014SUCV2405
** **

**Exhibit23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board ofDirectors

Marten Transport,Ltd.

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-81494 and33-75648) on Form S-8 of Marten Transport, Ltd. of our reports datedFebruary 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets ofMarten Transport, Ltd. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensiveincome and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reportsappear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Marten Transport,Ltd.

 
|                    | /s/ KPMG LLP |   |
|-------------------------|--------------|--------|
|                    |         |
| Minneapolis,  Minnesota |         |
| March 14, 2005          |         |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  information   extracted  from  the  Company's
Consolidated  Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1998 and  Consolidated  Statement of
Operations  for the Nine Months  Ended March 31,  1998 and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             348  
<SECURITIES>                                       529  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,946  
<ALLOWANCES>                                       184  
<INVENTORY>                                      1,928  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,153  
<PP&E>                                           1,317  
<DEPRECIATION>                                     488  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,630  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,699  
<BONDS>                                              9  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0  
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                           105  
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,667  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,630  
<SALES>                                         18,223  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,223  
<CGS>                                           14,285  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,285  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,214  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    74  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 109  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (327) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (327) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0  
<CHANGES>                                            0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     (327)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03) 
                                                        
                                               

</TABLE>
Leo C. HOLLINGSWORTH, Jr., Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-2162

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018

Leo C. Hollingsworth, Jr., pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Coleman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

*931The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

Wetherell, Makar, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7571

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KARIM FARUQ, a/k/a Charles Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR91-217-K, CA-99-2363-CCB)

Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karim Faruq, Appellant Pro Se. Katharine Jacobs Armentrout, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Karim Faruq seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Faruq, Nos. CR91-217-K; CA-99-2363-CCB (D. Md. Aug. 31, 1999). 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
# 6H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23
- 0247 BILLY ANN MERILA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. DANIEL BRIAN BURKE,

Defendant and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Richard A.**  **Reep,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this June 5, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Clifford B. Irwin, Sean M. Morris, Martin Rogers, Richard A. Reep 06/05/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0247
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Azuriah Hoskins, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv305 

Hamilton County Juvenile Court, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed 

by the Magistrate Judge on August 12, 2019 (Doc. 54). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file 

objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. 

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R 

(Doc. 54) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 54) of the Magistrate Judge is 

hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, 

Plaintiff’s second Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint (Doc. 33) is DENIED; 

defendant Williams’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 21) is GRANTED 

and defendant Williams is dismissed from the lawsuit; defendant Hamilton County 

Commissioners' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc. 30) is GRANTED 
2

and the Commissioners are dismissed from the lawsuit; and plaintiff’s Motion for 

Judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
* 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. 06-30317

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BLAKE KEITH LEWIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CR-20115-4

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Blake Keith Lewis pleaded guilty to conspiracy to interfere with commerce

by robbery, interference with commerce by robbery, and two counts of use of a

firearm during a crime of violence. The district court sentenced Lewis to 60

months of imprisonment on the conspiracy to interfere with commerce charge

and 120 months of imprisonment on the interference with commerce charge, to

run concurrently, and 10 years on the first firearm charge and 30 years on the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-30317

2

second firearm charge, to run consecutively to each other and to Lewis’s other

sentences.

Lewis argues that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive

sentence of 30 years of imprisonment on the second firearm charge pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) because that provision requires an intervening

conviction between the commission of the prior and subsequent firearm-related

offenses and thus should not be applied to multiple § 924(c) convictions obtained

in the same proceeding. Lewis concedes that this issue is foreclosed by the

Supreme Court’s decision in Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993), but he

contends that he is raising the issue to preserve it for further Supreme Court

review.

As Lewis concedes, this issue is foreclosed. See Deal, 508 U.S. at 132;

United States v. Hebert, 131 F.3d 514, 525 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
# Secretary Carlos Del Toro Releases 2023 Holiday Safety Video Message

#### 22 Dec 2023

02:55VIDEO  | 02:55 |2023 SECNAV Holiday Safety Video

Greetings, everyone. I’m Carlos Del Toro, the 78th Secretary of the Navy. 

As we celebrate this holiday season, many of us are preparing to spend time with our families and friends to exchange gifts and enjoy well wishes.  But many of our fellow Sailors, Marines, and civilians may be separated from their loved ones by distance or events. I am asking you to please keep them in mind, as they serve our Nation around the globe. 

Please take time to check in with your friends, colleagues, and co-workers. Also look for those who might need a friend or a place to visit during the season.

Just as important, take time for yourself. Spend quality time with your friends, family, and loved ones. Do the things that bring you joy and help you and your family recharge. Building, renewing, and strengthening these personal relationships increase our resiliency and help ensure we perform at our best, as we carry out the Nation's work.

And, at any point, if you think you need to talk to someone because you are hurting – this holiday season or in the future – please reach out. Please take advantage of resources that are available, such as Fleet and Family Support Centers, Marine and Family Support, command chaplains, and the Military Crisis Line.

If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts, please call 988 and press 1 or text "Talk" to the Crisis Line at 741-741. 

Service members and their dependents can also call Military One Source at 800-342-9647 or go to MilitaryOneSource.mil. 

For Civilian employees, call the Department of the Navy Civilian Employee Assistance Program at 1-844-366-2327 or go online to MagellanAscend.com 

At the end of this video, we’ll provide additional phone numbers for overseas support.

Please know that you are important to the success of the Department of the Navy and to your families and friends. We appreciate your selfless service, sacrifice, and support to our Nation. Your honor, courage, and commitment are an inspiration, and I am humbled and honored to serve as your Secretary of the Navy. 

I wish you all a wonderful holiday season filled with warmth, understanding, and kindness toward yourselves and each other.  And please stay safe.
Exhibit 4.12


 


CERTIFICATE OF
TRUST

OF

SCBT CAPITAL TRUST IV


 


THIS Certificate of Trust of SCBT Capital Trust IV (the “Trust”) is being duly executed
and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the
Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. §3801 et seq.) (the
“Act”).


 


1.             Name.
The name of the statutory trust formed, hereby is SCBT
Capital Trust IV.


 


2.             Delaware
Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State
of Delaware are Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100 North
Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19890, Attention: Corporate Trust Administration.


 


3.             Effective
Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the
Act.


 


 


	
   

  	
  WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as trustee

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Christopher J. Slaybaugh

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name: Christopher J. Slaybaugh

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  Assistant Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1017 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1017

   To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent fencing 
around the United States Capitol, any of the Capitol Buildings, or any 
                    portion of the Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2021

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the use of Federal funds to install permanent fencing 
around the United States Capitol, any of the Capitol Buildings, or any 
                    portion of the Capitol Grounds.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Fencing at the United States 
Capitol Complex Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR PERMANENT FENCING AROUND UNITED 
              STATES CAPITOL.

    No Federal funds may be used to install permanent fencing around--
            (1) the perimeter of any of the Capitol Buildings described 
        in section 5101 of title 40, United States Code; or
            (2) the perimeter of the United States Capitol Grounds, or 
        any portion thereof, described in section 5102 of such title.
                                 <all>
```
Richard Eugene SNOW v. Cynthia Ann SNOW

2160039

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.