alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41393

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL MAYA-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-263-ALL

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Miguel Maya-Sanchez 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. MayaSanchez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. MayaSanchez thus contends that his sentence should not exceed the
No. 02-41393

-2-

two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

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. 

Maya-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of American Standard Companies Inc. and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 pertaining to the registration of $1.0 billion of debt securities
(Registration No. 333-67943), Form S-8 pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase
Plan (Registration No. 333-40575),Form S-8 pertaining to the Deferred
Compensation Plan (Registration No. 333-75492) and Form S-8 pertaining to the
Stock Incentive Plan (Registration No. 333-65252) of our reports dated February
8, 2002 with respect to the financial statements and schedules of American
Standard Companies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2001.

                                                  /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MARCH 21, 2002
No. 09-8678.

#### Bobby Glenn Canida, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 1014, 130 S. Ct. 1900,

176 L. Ed. 2d 378,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2685.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### State v. Fernandez

2016 MT 311

DA 15-0074

11/29/16

Affirmed

Dist. 4 (Missoula)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 4616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL HARRIOT, a/k/a Lanky, a/k/a Donovan Smith, a/k/a Richard Onyett, a/k/a Bernard Barber, a/k/a James D. Smith, a/k/a Michael Smith , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 3:99

- cr - 00341

- MBS

- 3 )

Submitted : December 20, 2022 Decided: January 13, 2023

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: G. Wells Dickson, Jr. , WELLS DICKSON, PA , Kingstree, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs , United States Attorney , Elliott B. Daniels , Assistant U

. S

. Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616 Doc: 35 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Michael Harriot appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a reduced sentence under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194. While Harriot primarily requested a se ntence of time served, h is counsel argued in the alternative for a downward variance based on the disparity between the powder and crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines, and counsel proposed an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment to account for the disparity . The district court declined to reduce Harriot’s sentence to time served, but granted him a variance, adopted counsel’s proposed Guidelines range, and reduced Harriot’s sentence to 360 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Harriot co ntends that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision of whether to grant a reduction under the First Step Act. United States v. Jackson , 952 F.3d 492, 497 (4th Cir. 2020). However, “the invited error doctrine recognizes that a court cannot be asked by counsel to take a step in a case and later be convicted of error, because it has complied with such request.” United States v. Hasson , 26 F.4th 610, 621 n.4 (4th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert. denied , 143 S. Ct. 310 (2022). Because the district court adopted Harriot’s alternative argument and proposed Guidelines range, the invited error doctrine applies and he has thus waived the argument he se eks to advance on appeal

. See United States v. Shea , 989 F.3d 271, 282 (4th Cir. 2021). USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616 Doc: 35 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-4616 Doc: 35 Filed: 01/13/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1655

___________

Roselyn Daniels, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of South Dakota.

Wyodak Resources Development; *

Black Hills Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 22, 1999

Filed: October 28, 1999 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roselyn Daniels appeals the district court's denial of Daniels's motion to amend

her complaint to add claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments, we conclude the

district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Daniels to amend her

complaint. See Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998)

("Proper justification for denying [a motion to amend] includes: 'undue delay [or]

futility of amendment.'"). As the district court stated, the motion to amend was

untimely, having been made almost four months after the court-extended deadline for
-2-

motions had passed and more than five months after the discovery deadline had

expired, and would have prejudiced Wyodak Resources Development (Wyodak) and

Black Hills Corporation (Black Hills) because the proposed amendment involved

different factual and legal issues than those alleged in the original complaint and would

have required additional discovery. See id. As the district court also concluded, the

motion to amend would have been futile because Daniels did not properly present her

proposed claims of sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination to the EEOC

before filing this action in the district court. See Shempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp.,

151 F.3d 793, 796-97 (8th Cir. 1998) (employer entitled to summary judgment because

employee did not present her Title VII claims in valid administrative charge to EEOC),

cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1028 (1999).

 Daniels also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Wyodak

and Black Hills on Daniels's gender discrimination claim. Having made a thorough

inquiry, we conclude the district court is correct and the record supports the district

court's ruling. Because the parties' submissions show they are familiar with the issues

before this court and the law that controls our decision, we believe an extended

discussion would serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm for the reasons set out in the

district court's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 09-8632.

#### In Re Freddie Eugene Casey, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 934, 130 S. Ct. 1564,

176 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1089.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 11-7148.

#### Martin W. Otto, et ux., Petitioners v. Hillsborough County, Florida.

565 U.S. 1109, 132 S. Ct. 1074,

181 L. Ed. 2d 731,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 404.

January 9, 2012.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until January 30, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 70 So. 3d 587.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 2002 Omnibus Incentive Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan(Registration No. 333-96547), Form S-3 pertaining to the registration of $1.0 billion of debt securities (Registration No. 333-67943), Form S-8 pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Registration No. 333-40575), Form S-8pertaining to the Deferred Compensation Plan (Registration No. 333-75492), Form S-8 pertaining to the Supplemental Compensation Plan for Outside Directors (Registration No. 333-109562) and Forms S-8 pertaining to the Stock Incentive Plan(Registration Nos. 333-65252 and 033-63007) of American Standard Companies Inc., of our reports dated February 22, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of American Standard Companies Inc., American StandardCompanies Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Standard Companies Inc., included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

/s/ Ernst &Young LLP 

New York, New York 

February 22, 2007
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 1561 STANDARD 12.44 0.71 -2.92

Tolerance

1 1 THIN YELLOW 

LIMIT 13.25 0.84 -2.68 0.81 0.13 0.24 0.86

2 2 THIN RED 

LIMIT 12.92 0.93 -3.38 0.48 0.22 -0.46 0.78

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Shade Number BLUE 1561 Piece/Roll Number No Roll #

DLA/AIR FORCE SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT July 14, 2017

Fabric Nomenclature BERET, WOOL A-A-55184

CR/PD 01-09

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp 

OFF
No. 09-6570.

#### Brian Adams, Petitioner v. Honda Engineering North America, Inc.

559 U.S. 964, 130 S. Ct. 1573,

176 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1077.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1031, 130 S. Ct. 638, 175 L. Ed. 2d 490, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8299.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                              NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin S. Royal, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: March 5, 2003                 By:  /s/ Kevin S. Royal
                                          ___________________________________
                                          Kevin S. Royal
                                          Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4907 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery 

for veterans in the Pikes Peak region of Colorado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2006 

Mr. HEFLEY (for himself, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

TANCREDO, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BEAUPREZ, and Ms. DEGETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a 

national cemetery for veterans in the Pikes Peak region 

of Colorado. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

5 shall establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, 

6 United States Code, a national cemetery in the Pikes Peak 

7 region to serve the needs of veterans and their families. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4907 IH 

1 (b) CONSULTATION IN SELECTION OF SITE.—Before 

2 selecting the site for the national cemetery established 

3 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with— 

4 (1) appropriate officials of the State of Colo5 rado and local officials in the Pikes Peak region; and 

6 (2) appropriate officials of the United States, 

7 including the Administrator of General Services, 

8 with respect to land belonging to the United States 

9 in that area that would be suitable to establish the 

10 national cemetery under subsection (a). 

11 (c) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT DONATION OF PARCEL

12 OF LAND.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans 

14 Affairs may accept on behalf of the United States 

15 the gift of an appropriate parcel of real property. 

16 The Secretary shall have administrative jurisdiction 

17 over such parcel of real property, and shall use such 

18 parcel to establish the national cemetery under sub19 section (a). 

20 (2) INCOME TAX TREATMENT OF GIFT.—For 

21 purposes of Federal income, estate, and gift taxes, 

22 the real property accepted under paragraph (1) shall 

23 be considered as a gift to the United States. 

24 (d) REPORT.—As soon as practicable after the date 

25 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4907 IH 

1 to Congress a report on the establishment of the national 

2 cemetery under subsection (a). The report shall set forth 

3 a schedule for such establishment and an estimate of the 

4 costs associated with such establishment. 

5 (e) PIKES PEAK REGION DEFINED.—In this Act, the 

6 term ‘‘Pikes Peak region’’ means the geographic area con7 sisting of the following Colorado counties: 

8 (1) Teller. 

9 (2) El Paso. 

10 (3) Fremont. 

11 (4) Pueblo. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals 28363 03-NOV-2010 09:07 AM NO. 28363
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
ALLEN VIDAL, Claimant-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Employer-Appellee, Self-Insured.

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD (CASE NO. AB 2005-407 (02-04-41062))
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge To ' oto ' o, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of Allen Vidal’s papers requesting clarification from the supreme court of the intermediate court of appeals’ April 9, 2008 memorandum opinion, it appears that we lack jurisdiction to issue such clarification. SeeHRS § 602-5 (Supp. 2009). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for clarification is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, November 3, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Fa ' auuga To ' oto ' o
No. 11-6478.

#### Inara Cedrins, Petitioner v. Executive Committee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

565 U.S. 1186, 132 S. Ct. 1164,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 955.

181 L. Ed. 2d 1033,

January 23, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 1041, 132 S. Ct. 605, 181 L. Ed. 2d 433, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8253.
Schedule of directors and executive officers who are parties to Indemnification



 Exhibit 10.6 
 INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS 
 MariLyn R. Blair 

Michael B. Bracy 
 Robert M. Burks, Jr.

 Deloris R. Duquette 
 C.R. Dwiggins,
Jr. 
 Kirby A. Dyess 
 Larry H.
Eggleston 
 Jon E. Eliassen 
 Charles
H. Gaylord 
 Thomas S. Glanville 

Steven M. Helmbrecht 
 John W. Holleran

 Philippe Le Bris 
 Chuck McAtee

 Philip C. Mezey 
 Sharon L. Nelson

 Carl W. Porter 
 Gary E. Pruitt

 Marcel Regnier 
 Jared P. Serff

 Malcolm Unsworth 
 Russell E. Vanos

 Robert W. Whitney 
 Graham M. Wilson
No. 11-6530.

#### Charles D. Conway, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 991, 132 S. Ct. 530,

181 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7678.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 17, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0263

Lower Tribunal No. AH6TZVE

________________

Christian Cardona,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Robin Faber, Judge.

Christian Cardona, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 09-9003.

#### Calvin L. Owens, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1020, 130 S. Ct. 1916,

176 L. Ed. 2d 388,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2412.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-8573.

#### Rene Martinez-Arellano, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 996, 130 S. Ct. 1746,

176 L. Ed. 2d 219,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2208.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 345 Fed. Appx. 379.
No. 09-8455.

#### In Re Willie Ray Bush, Petitioner.

559 U.S. 934, 130 S. Ct. 1553,

176 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1086.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4957 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Tylersville division 

of the Lamar National Fish Hatchery and Fish Technology Center 

to the State of Pennsylvania. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2006 

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 

Tylersville division of the Lamar National Fish Hatchery 

and Fish Technology Center to the State of Pennsylvania. 

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 ‘‘Tylersville Fish Hatch5 ery Conveyance Act’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4957 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF TYLERSVILLE NATIONAL FISH 

2 HATCHERY TO THE STATE OF PENNSYL3 VANIA. 

4 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIREMENT.—Within 180 days 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

6 of the Interior shall convey to the State of Pennsylvania 

7 without reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the 

8 United States in and to the property described in sub9 section (b) for use by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

10 Commission as part of the State of Pennsylvania fish cul11 ture program. 

12 (b) PROPERTY DESCRIBED.—The property referred 

13 to in subsection (a) consists of— 

14 (1) the Tylersville division of the Lamar Na15 tional Fish Hatchery and Fish Technology Center 

16 comprised of 125 acres leased to the State of Penn17 sylvania Fish and Boat Commission, located on 43 

18 Hatchery Lane in Loganton, Pennsylvania, as de19 scribed in the 1984 Cooperative Agreement between 

20 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

21 State of Pennsylvania; 

22 (2) all improvements and related personal prop23 erty under the control of the Secretary that is lo24 cated on that property, including buildings, struc25 tures, equipment, and all easements and leases relat26 ing to that property; and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4957 IH 

1 (3) all water rights relating to that property. 

2 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If any of the prop3 erty conveyed to the State of Pennsylvania under this sec4 tion is used for any purpose other than the use authorized 

5 under subsection (a), all right, title, and interest in and 

6 to all property conveyed under this section shall revert to 

7 the United States. The State of Pennsylvania shall ensure 

8 that all property reverting to the United States under this 

9 subsection is in substantially the same or better condition 

10 as at the time of transfer to the State. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS