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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50640

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER REGALADO-FLORES, also known as

Pedro Sanchez, also known as Pablo Sanchez,

also known as Javier Regalo-Flores,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50674

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS EULALIO RODRIGUEZ-CASTILLO,

Defendant- Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50705

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS SALAZAR-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant;
No. 00-50640

c/w Nos. 00-50674 & 00-50705 &

00-50797

- 2 -

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50797

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE VILLA-ENRIQUEZ, also known

as David Perez-Enriquez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Regalado-Flores, Carlos Eulalio Rodriguez-Castillo,

Jesus Salazar-Gomez, and Jorge Villa-Enriquez (collectively the

Defendants) appeal their sentences following their guilty plea

convictions for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The Defendants argue that their sentences

should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Defendants acknowledge that their argument

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), but they seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 
No. 00-50640

c/w Nos. 00-50674 & 00-50705 &

00-50797

- 3 -

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

523 U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 09-9777.

#### Jennifer D. Guerra, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1085, 130 S. Ct. 2137,

176 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3159.

April 19, 2010.

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

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 869.
EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

             FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, David Moskowitz,  President and Chief Executive Officer of GenoMed, Inc. (the
"registrant"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the
registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004
(the "Report"). I hereby certify 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 registrant as of and for the end of that period.


                                           /s/ David Moskowitz
                                           -----------------------------
                                           David Moskowitz
Date:  September 22, 2004                  President and Chief Executive Officer



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

             FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Robyn Owens,  Chief Financial  Officer of GenoMed,  Inc. (the  "registrant"),
have executed this  certification  for furnishing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the registrant's
Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2004 (the
"Report"). I hereby certify 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 registrant as of and for the end of that period.

                                           /s/ Robyn Owens
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Robyn Owens
Date:  September 22, 2004                  Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Edwin Christopher LAWING

No. 217P18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Edwin Christopher Lawing, For Lawing, Edwin Christopher.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of July 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED ROBERT PHILYAW ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2326 LT Case No. 2013

- CF

- 0375 STATE OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed February 21, 2023 3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Robert W. Hodges, Judge. Robert Philyaw, Milton, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(A)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 1934, AS
     AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
     THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Yin Sen Wong, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report of Weston Technologies
Corp.;

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;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business
issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:

By: /s/ Yin Sen Wong
--------------------------
Yin Sen Wong, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
No. 09-10004.

#### Dave A. Richards, Petitioner v. Kathleen MacDonald, Judge, Circuit Court of Michigan, Wayne County, et al.

560 U.S. 914, 130 S. Ct. 3297,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1200,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3932.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie DENNIS, Appellant.

No. ED 105377

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: February 27, 2018

Gregory Barnes, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

Fredrick J. Ludwig, 9666 Olive Blvd. Ste. 690, St. Louis, MO 63132, for Defendant/Appellant.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

*15Willie Dennis ("Defendant") appeals his conviction of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of § 571.070.1(1). Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to seven years in prison. Defendant offers two points on appeal. In his first point, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to give the jury Defendant's tendered jury instruction governing justification of "emergency measures" because there was sufficient evidence to support giving that instruction. Specifically, Defendant claims the justification instruction should have been given because his possession of a weapon was an emergency measure to prevent imminent injury to himself and another. And in his second point, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss with prejudice because the State violated Defendant's right to a speedy trial, as he was confined in jail for over a year without sufficient justification for the delays in bringing him to trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
Jevin RHODES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105590

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 17, 2018

Alexandria A. Shah, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.

Mary H. Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before: Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Antoin Brewer (Movant) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 24.035 (2016) without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The decision is affirmed. Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(B)

   CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER RELATING TO A
                PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Arthur Winkleblack, Director, Vice President, Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer of H. J. Heinz Finance Company, a Delaware corporation
("Heinz Finance"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

     1. Heinz Finance's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July
        30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        Heinz Finance.

Date: September 12, 2003

                                          By:   /s/ ARTHUR B. WINKLEBLACK
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Arthur B. Winkleblack
                                              Title: Director, Vice President,
                                            Chief
                                                Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Gladys Lindsay *et al v.*J. O. Buchanan

(No. 7252)

Submitted May 3, 1932.

Decided May 17, 1932.

*Lillian 8. Robertson*and *England <& Ritchie,*for appellant.

*Lilly <& Lilly,*for appellees.

HatoheR, President:

This is a suit brought by the devisees of C. R. Poling to set aside a deed to defendant Buchanan for a house and lot in the city of Charleston. The circuit court found for plaintiffs, holding specifically “that the evidence clearly proves that at the time of the execution of the deed in question, C. R. Poling did not possess memory, understanding and mind sufficient to know and appreciate the nature, character and effect of the acts of signing, executing and delivering said deed in question.”

The deed was executed on February 11, 1931. Poling was then eighty-seven years old. He died March 20, 1931. The consideration for the conveyance was $25.00 cash and nineteen monthly payments of $25.00 each, represented by notes. The value of the property was estimated at from $1,800 to $3,000. It was rented at $22.00 a month. Poling was taken to a bank after the deed was executed where he indorsed (without difficulty) and left the nineteen notes for collection.

*290The father of defendant saw Poling about a week before the deed was executed and considered him normal mentally at that time. The defendant's mother and the notary who took Poling’s acknowledgment to the deed were of opinion that he. was in good mental condition when he executed the deed. (The notary stated that he talked with Poling “some” when he took the acknowledgment but had never seen him before.) Ten disinterested witnesses testified to the contrary. Their factual evidence is clear, uncontroverted, and shows that at the date of the deed Poling had become dirty, unkempt, incontinent, incoherent, subject to hallucinations, very feeble, without sense of location and time, and without lucidity of 'thought or memory, and that he was in an advanced stage of chronic senile dementia. Two of these witnesses (his tenants) questioned him about selling his property the very evening of February 11th. He then appeared unable to recall the sale and seemed to think that the notes he had indorsed had something to do with getting himself a job in the post office.

It is familiar law that the opinion of the notary is entitled to peculiar weight in such cases. But like that of an attesting witness to a will, it is not conclusive. 1 Wharton & Stille Med. Juris., sec. 368. In the final analysis: “The weight and value of his opinion depends very much upon his means of observation and knowledge.” Jones Comm, on Ev. (2d Ed.), sec. 1270. In this case then witnesses who had better opportunity to judge of Poling’s mentality than the notary, differ with him. When we consider that preponderance of evidence in connection with the inadequate purchase price of the property, we are of opinion that the decision of the circuit court is fully sustained. It is accordingly affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Form of Award Notice under Restricted Stock Unit Plan dated November 12, 2009



 Exhibit 10.31 

 

 

 November 12, 2009 
 Chrysler Group LLC Restricted Stock Unit Plan 
 Award Notice 

[Name] 
 Dear
                            : 

Chrysler Group LLC (the “Company”) is pleased to evidence and confirm its grant to you of
             Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) on November 12, 2009, pursuant to the Chrysler Group LLC Restricted Stock Unit Plan (the “RSU Plan”). The
terms defined in the RSU Plan have the same meanings in this Award Notice. This Award Notice and the RSUs evidenced by this Award Notice are subject to and subordinate to the terms and conditions set forth in the RSU Plan which is enclosed.

 This Award Notice is intended to comply and will be administered in a manner that complies with the limitations and
restrictions imposed by Section 111 of TARP. The Special Master has approved the grant of the RSUs to you. However, compensation that is not permitted to be paid or accrued under TARP shall not be paid or accrued under this Award Notice, and
you shall have no right or claim against the Company for any benefits or compensation that the Company, in its discretion, determines is not payable or cannot be accrued under this Award Notice as a result of compliance with TARP. 

             of the RSUs evidenced by this Award Notice are
Service RSUs and will vest if you are continuously employed through November 12, 2012, and the EBITDA target threshold for 2010 of $2.5 billion is achieved.             
of the RSUs evidenced by this Award Notice are IPO RSUs and will vest if you are continuously employed through the later of (x) November 12, 2012 and (y) the date on which a Chrysler IPO occurs. Except as provided in
Section 5(b) (death or Disability) or Section 5(c) (Retirement) of the RSU Plan, if your employment terminates prior to the Vesting Date set forth above, the Unvested RSUs then held by you shall be forfeited without payment as of the date
your employment terminates. 







 Except as provided in Section 6(b) (overriding TARP rule) of the RSU Plan,
(i) an amount equal to the Fair Market Value of the Chrysler Units underlying the Vested Service RSUs credited to your RSU Account will be paid to you in 2013 and (ii) an amount equal to the Fair Market Value of the Chrysler
Units underlying the Vested IPO RSUs credited to your RSU Account will be paid on or as soon as practicable after the applicable Vesting Date, but in no event later than March 15 of the calendar year next following the calendar year in which
the Vesting Date occurs. 
  

			
	CHRYSLER GROUP LLC
		
	By:	 	
	
	  

	Nancy A. Rae	 	Date            
	Executive Vice President
	Human Resources


  

			
	PARTICIPANT
	
	  

	[Name]	 	Date
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Divonte L. LEWIS, Appellant.

WD 80150

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: MAY 15, 2018

Julia E Neidhardt, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Irene C Karns, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Alok Ahuja, Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Divonte L. Lewis appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder pursuant to Section 565.021, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2014, and armed criminal action pursuant to Section 571.015, RSMo. 2000. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
---

Exhibit 32.2

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                     
|----------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Valerie Helsing, of Argentex Mining
Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the interim period ended October 31, 2009 (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
Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated: December 10, 2009

|/s/ Valerie
      Helsing        | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|Valerie Helsing                  | 
|Chief Financial Officer          | 
|(Principal Financial Officer and | 
|Principal Accounting Officer)    | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.15    
    


 
    INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM
  As of July 14, 2010    



	1.
	Annual Retainer:    $75,000.



	2.
	Committee Fees:    audit committee member—$25,000, audit committee
chair—additional $15,000, nominating and corporate governance committee member—$15,000.



	3.
	Equity Awards.    To be determined from time to time by the board of directors. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.15


INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM As of July 14, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1.

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 I, Patrick Freeman, Chief Executive Officer of Cordia Corporation (the
"Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
period December 31, 2003 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 (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 the Registrant.

                              By: /s/ Patrick Freeman
                                 -------------------------------
                                 Patrick Freeman
                                 Chief Executive Officer

April 14, 2004
 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and
furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.