alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Ivan ARANDA-LUNA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10071 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 2, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Ivan Aranda-Luna pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 39 months of imprisonment and one year of supervised release. In his only argument on appeal, he asserts that because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior felony conviction, his sentence exceeded the two-year statutory maximum sentence set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and violated his due process rights. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but states that he seeks to preserve it for possible future review because recent decisions indicate that the Supreme Court may reconsider the issue. *See Alleyne v. United States,*— U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).

The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance, or alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is proper when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties 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, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969).

*208As Aranda-Luna concedes, his due process argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres.*The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Alleyne*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); *United States v, Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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,
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 18, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/    Richard A. Ross       
|                        |  |     |  | Richard A. Ross              
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                        |  |     |  | (principal financial officer)
# Официален вестник C 160A/27 м

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 160A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 5727 май 2014 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 160A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 5727 май 2014 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Становища |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Европейска агенция по лекарствата |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Съобщение за отмяна | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска агенция по лекарствата

2014/C 160A/01

Съобщение за отмяна

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Преглед на броевете на Официален вестник серия С А Конкурси | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Преглед на броевете на Официален вестник серия С А Конкурси

2

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска агенция по лекарствата

| 27.5.2014 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 160/1

---

Съобщение за отмяна

2014/C 160 A/01

Европейската агенция по лекарствата взе решение да отмени следната процедура по подбор:

| — | ЕМА/AD/359: Началник отдел „ИТ операции“, сектор „Информационни технологии“ (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

ЕМА/AD/359: Началник отдел „ИТ операции“, сектор „Информационни технологии“ (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 160/2

---

ПРЕГЛЕД НА БРОЕВЕТЕ НА ОФИЦИАЛЕН ВЕСТНИК СЕРИЯ С А КОНКУРСИ

2014/C 160 A/02

По-долу е даден списък на броевете на Официален вестник от серия С А, публикувани през настоящата година.

Освен ако не е посочено друго, броевете на Официален вестник са публикувани на всички езици.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

             RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
                             DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

     The following table sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
preferred stock dividend requirements for the periods indicated:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                            FIVE MONTHS
    YEARS ENDED JULY 31,       ENDED       YEAR ENDED
    ---------------------   DECEMBER 31,   DECEMBER 31
    1996    1997    1998        1998          1999
    ----    -----   -----   ------------   -----------
<S> <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>            <C>
     4.9     3.5     3.0        3.1            2.2
</TABLE>

     For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings have been calculated by
adding fixed charges (excluding capitalized interest and preferred stock
dividends) to income before extraordinary items. Fixed charges consist of
interest costs, whether expensed or capitalized, preferred stock dividend
requirements, the interest component of rental expense, if any, and amortization
of debt discounts and issue costs, whether expensed or capitalized.

           CALCULATION OF COMBINED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
                          YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999
                         (DOLLAR AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<S>                                                           <C>
(Private) Earnings:
  Net income................................................  $149,513
  Interest expense (including amortization of debt discount
     and issuing costs).....................................    81,412
  Equity in loss of affiliates..............................     3,169
  Other adjustments.........................................       452
                                                              --------
                                                              $234,546
                                                              ========
Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense (including amortization of debt discount
     and issuing costs).....................................  $ 81,412
  Capitalized interest......................................       126
  Preferred stock dividends.................................    22,777
  Other adjustments.........................................       374
                                                              --------
                                                              $104,689
                                                              ========
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges..........................       2.2
</TABLE>
John BEHLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1481

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37423

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD CAMARILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 640

Filed: September 10, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, 

dismissed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Richard Camarillo pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(c)(1). The parties entered into a binding I.C.R. 11 plea agreement. Pursuant to the 

agreement and in exchange for Camarillo’s guilty plea, the state dismissed an additional charge, 

agreed not to file a habitual violator enhancement, and agreed to recommend a unified sentence 

of seven years, with four years fixed. Camarillo waived his right to appeal his sentence provided 

that the district court did not exceed the state’s recommendation. The district court sentenced 

Camarillo to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. 

Camarillo appeals.
2

We hold that Camarillo’s appellate challenge to the excessiveness of his sentence has 

been waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez, 142 Idaho 786, 787, 

133 P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Camarillo’s plea agreement contained a clause by which 

Camarillo waived his right to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, we dismiss Camarillo’s appeal.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EMANUAL SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T

- Man , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten , Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00750

- TLW

- 1; 3:17

- cv 01461

- TLW )

Submitted : September 2 2 , 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judge s.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Emanual Shorten, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Emanu a l Shorten seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find th e district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedur al ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shorten has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials bef ore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Fox Strategic Housing Income Partners (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           17688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3917
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                            3410
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   49536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2436
<OTHER-SE>                                       27030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     49536
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1339
<INCOME-TAX>                                       561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                778
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       778
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
#### Cris J. MARKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-17157

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 26, 2017

Cris J. Markey, Pro Se

Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Attorney, Akerman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees

Before; TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cris J. Markey appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Markey’s wrongful foreclosure and other state law claims because Markey failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. *See id.*at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief), Markey’s contentions that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) may not serve as beneficiary of a deed of trust, or that its involvement undermines the validity of his loan or deed of trust, are foreclosed by Nevada law. *See Edelstein v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon,*— Nev. -, 286 P.3d 249, 259-260 (2012) (holding that MERS is capable of being a valid beneficiary of a deed of trust). We reject as without merit Markey’s contentions that the securitization of his loan was fraudulent, unjustly enriched defendants, or otherwise affected the validity of his loan. To the extent that Markey challenges the validity of any assignment of his loan into a securitized trust, he lacks standing to raise such a challenge. *See Wood v. Germann,*— Nev. -, 331 P.3d 859, 861 (2014).

The district court properly dismissed Markey’s Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”) claims because these claims were barred by the statute of limitations and Markey failed to demonstrate that equitable tolling applied. *See*12 U.S.C. § 2614 (prescribing at most a three-year statute of limitations for violations of RESPA); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(f), 1640(e) (TILA actions for rescission must be brought within three years of consummation of the loan; an action for damages under TILA and HOEPA must be brought within one year of the alleged violation).

The district court did not err in ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss prior to the completion of discovery. *See Rutman**791*Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,*829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The purpose of [Rule] 12(b)(6) is to enable defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting themselves to discovery.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Amil Lamont BARNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3297

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Adem MUSTAFIC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2012

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20330 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALEJANDRO SALVADOR-FIGUEROA Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-376-1 Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro Salvador-Figueroa presents arguments that he concedes are f oreclosed by U nited States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Salvador-Figueroa’s request for a remand for correction of the judgment is moot as the judgment has been amended. Appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
EXHIBIT
32.1





ONCOLOGIX
TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL

EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Oncologix Tech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August
31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Roy Wayne Erwin,
Chief Executive Officer and President 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: December
    16, 2013 | Oncologix Tech, Inc.
|--------------------------- | --------------------
|                            | By                  
|                            |                     





A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not
be considered filed as part of the Report.