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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-51025 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAGDALENO SOLORIO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-824-ALL-DB

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Magdaleno Solorio-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after 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). Solorio-Sanchez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due ProcessNo. 01-51025 -2- Clause. Alternatively, Solorio-Sanchez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) 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. Solorio-Sanchez 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), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). 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 the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

RESPODENT

v.

GARY DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 269 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of March, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Corey CHARLTON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
BEAL BANK NEVADA, etc., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. KNIGHTS KEY CORPORATION, etc., et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1321 3D17-1137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

d1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

138998 & (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138998 COA: 288228 Wayne CC: 05-005982-FC GORDON RANDLE DAVID, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 27, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
motion to remand is DENIED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1555 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue final rules 

to promote and incentivize the widespread adoption of broadband consumer labels, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Ms. CRAIG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to issue 

final rules to promote and incentivize the widespread 

adoption of broadband consumer labels, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Broadband Consumer 

5 Transparency Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADOPTION OF CONSUMER BROADBAND LABELS. 

7 (a) FINAL RULE.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1555 IH

1 promulgate regulations to promote and incentivize the 

2 widespread adoption of broadband consumer labels, as de3 scribed in the Public Notice of the Commission issued on 

4 April 4, 2016 (DA 16–357), to disclose to consumers in5 formation regarding broadband internet access service 

6 plans. 

7 (b) HEARINGS.—In issuing the final rule under sub8 section (a), the Commission shall conduct a series of pub9 lic hearings to assess, at the time of the proceeding— 

10 (1) how consumers evaluate broadband internet 

11 access service plans; and 

12 (2) whether disclosures to consumers informa13 tion regarding broadband internet access service 

14 plans, including those required under section 8.1 of 

15 title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, are available, 

16 effective, and sufficient. 

17 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

18 (1) BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.— 

19 The term ‘‘broadband internet access service’’ has 

20 the meaning given such term in section 8.1 of title 

21 47, Code of Federal Regulations. 

22 (2) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

23 means the Federal Communications Commission. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Robert L. DAVIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0772

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL, FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 

### 2021 KW 1539 VERSUS LUCAS RODDY FEBRUARY 25, 

### 2022 In Re: Lucas 

### Roddy, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 23rd

Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 14, 222. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, 

### C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. VGW AHP CHH



### COURT OF APPEAL, F RST CIRCUIT

DEP 

### Y C ERK OF COURT

F R THE COURT
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 03-1137

((((((((((((((((

Annette S. Muecke,

v.

SUE M. HALL

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Petition for Review

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.Pursuant to the notice of bankruptcy of Annette S. Muecke, filed with this Court on March 24, 2004, this case is **ABATED**.  Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.

2.This case is removed from the Court's active docket and shall be treated as closed, subject to reinstatement upon proper motion.  Tex. R. App. P. 8.3.  All motions and other documents pending or filed are abated subject to being reargued in the event the case is reinstated. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2 and 8.3.  It is the parties' responsibility to immediately notify this Court once the automatic bankruptcy stay is lifted.

Done at the City of Austin, this 25th day of March 2004.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Stephen M. Dexter,
certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of SED International Holdings,
Inc.;
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: November 12, 2013



/s/ Stephen M.
Dexter

Stephen M. Dexter

Interim Chief Financial
Officer

(Principal Financial
and Accounting Officer)
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 160A/27 m

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 160A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 57.° anno27 maggio 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 160A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

57.° anno27 maggio 2014

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avvisi |
| | PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI |
| | Agenzia europea per i medicinali |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Avviso di annullamento | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

V   Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Agenzia europea per i medicinali

2014/C 160A/01

Avviso di annullamento

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Cronistoria delle GU C A Concorsi

2

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

V Avvisi

PROCEDIMENTI AMMINISTRATIVI

Agenzia europea per i medicinali

| 27.5.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 160/1

---

Avviso di annullamento

2014/C 160 A/01

L’Agenzia europea per i medicinali ha deciso di annullare la seguente procedura di selezione:

| — | EMA/AD/359: Capo del Dipartimento Operazioni IT, Divisione Tecnologia dell’Informazione (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: Capo del Dipartimento Operazioni IT, Divisione Tecnologia dell’Informazione (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 160/2

---

CRONISTORIA DELLE GU C A CONCORSI

2014/C 160 A/02

Si riporta qui di seguito l'elenco delle GU C A pubblicate nell'anno in corso.

Salvo indicazione contraria, le GU sono pubblicate in tutte le versioni linguistiche.

| 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

---
Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended July 5, 2004 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


          August 16, 2004               /s/Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                        ------------------------
                                        Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                        Chief Financial Officer


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


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS AMENDED SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          26,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  409,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                    73,809
<INVENTORY>                                     55,733
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               493,747
<PP&E>                                         646,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                 313,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,149,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,756
<BONDS>                                        623,276
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                     342,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,149,110
<SALES>                                      1,181,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,181,143
<CGS>                                          400,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  400,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                67,040
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,028
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,728
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
Tony Lee CARTWRIGHT v. STATE

CR-15-1512

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 18, 2015. 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, February 18, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A0941. DOROTHY NASH v. KROGER COMPANY et al..
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 10.65


 


Addendum to Macadamia Nut Purchase Agreement


Between Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation and ML Macadamia Orchards,


L.P. Dated January 1, 2006


 


This
Addendum to the Macadamia Nut Purchase Agreement (Agreement) is entered into on
the date set forth below by and between Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation
(MLMNC-Buyer) and ML Macadamia Orchards, LP. (MLP-Seller).


 


1.               Term. This Addendum
to the Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced for all purposes as of July 1,
2009 and shall continue in full force and effect until June 30, 2010
unless terminated earlier as provided in the Agreement.


 


2.               Purchase and Sale. Under this
Addendum MLP agrees to sell and MLMNC agrees to purchase all of MLP’s macadamia
nut in shell not covered under a separate contract. It is understood that the
crop size will vary due to weather conditions but that the amount covered under
this addendum will be a minimum of 9 million lbs Wet in Shell and may not
exceed 15 million lbs Wet in Shell.


 


3.                    Purchase Price.
The Purchase Price for the Macadamia Wet in Shell covered under this
addendum will be determined on a 20% moisture and 30% Saleable Kernel recovery
to Dry in Shell (SK/DIS) basis. The price per pound will be $0.63/lb adjusted
to 20% moisture and 30% SK/DIS for the term of this contract.


 


4.                    Payment Terms. Payment shall
be made according to Hershey standard policies for vendor payments.


 


5.                    All other terms regarding
Sampling, Testing, Accounting and Reports, Termination, Notice, Force Majeure,
Waiver, Assignment, Entire Agreement, Voluntary Mediation and Governing Law
under the Agreement will remain the same.


 


Mauna
Loa Macadamia Nut Corp (MLMNC-Buyer)


 


	
  By:
  

  	
  /s/ Charles Young

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its Director of Agribusiness

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  March 23, 2009

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ML
  Macadamia Orchards, L. P. (MLP-Seller)

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
    /s/Dennis J. Simonis

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
  March 23, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 31, 2017

s0522

Order 

Clerk

May 31, 2017

153855-6(99)(101)

WILLIAM P. FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING

TRUST, by its Trustee, WILLIAM P. FROLING,

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 153855

COA: 322019

Macomb CC: 2013-003083-CZ

PELICAN PROPERTY, LLC,

Defendant-Counterplaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

WILLIAM P. FROLING REVOCABLE LIVING

TRUST, by its Trustee, WILLIAM P. FROLING,

Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 153856

COA: 323074

Macomb CC: 2013-003083-CZ

PELICAN PROPERTY, LLC,

Defendant-Counterplaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

and

CAREN BURDI and EARL, EARL & ROSE,

P.L.L.C.,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

30, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. The motion to hold the case in abeyance is DENIED.

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
Exhibit 8



Certification of President and Chief
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 filing of the annual report on
Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc. (the “Company”),
I, Hannes Portmann, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: March 29, 2018





|/s/ Hannes Portmann |  | 
|------------------- |  | 

Hannes Portmann
President and Chief Executive Officer