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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 01-50627 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE OSCAR ZAMORANO-GRAJEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-35-ALL-DB

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Oscar Zamorano-Grajeda appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally reenter the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zamorano-Grajeda complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Zamorano-Grajeda argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of theNo. 01-50627 -2- evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Zamorano-Grajeda thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the 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. Zamorano-Grajeda 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), 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.
Gary JEANSONNE v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS YOUTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE and Sedgwick Claims Management Services

NO. 2018-C-1148

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

CRICHTON, J., would grant for the reasons assigned by Judges Amy and Conery.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUS’I’IN 

Bonorabl* Charlea 8. Mertin 

Counhy Auditor 

$arrimoo county 

Mareell, Texas 

on the above atato 

COW R. Stoboard appoln8ed tc eat end to be kntiwa a6 the 

Earri*on eoullty Tire aatioaing mlkrd, Bwipamod or 

three mea&m-a, wlth one ot tholr number aoting 

as ahalrean. z; oogy of the lettar frcm the @warnor ia anoloeed herewith Par your gblanas and he&p 

in snswsr%np: ny inquiry. 
Orlmbd andor thb 

0 purola8b b: 

tlnd~retand is 

In yous inqutry #itats in 

tion ot tha sot 

8UIpw mtlonln& 

BUOh #lPpbPIIbI 

ins hddalmtrator 

id by either of 
.-. 

335 

: 

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

I, Nicholas Ferris, Chief Executive Officer of J-Pacific Gold Inc.(the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
1. This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"), fully complies withthe 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
Date: June 29, 2005
/s/ Nicholas Ferris Chief Executive OfficerJ-Pacific Gold Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0561 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CAMERON J. EAGLEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 20 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 16 2021

08/16/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0561
Jennifer MASINO, Appellant, v. Theodore P. MASINO, Appellee.

No. 1D18-450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

September 14, 2018 Rehearing Denied October 4, 2018

Andrew D. Wheeler of The Wheeler Firm, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellant.

David A. Carroll, Pensacola, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The former wife raises six issues with the trial court's final judgment of dissolution. We reverse the imputation of income, which requires us to reverse the court's determinations of alimony and attorneys' fees as well; but we affirm the judgment in all other respects.

A trial court may impute income to a former spouse who is "voluntarily unemployed or underemployed due to the pursuit of his or her own interests, or a less than diligent effort to find employment paying at a level equal to that formerly enjoyed." *Swain v. Swain* , 932 So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Before imputing income, the court is also required to make "particularized findings regarding work history, occupational qualifications, and the current job market in the community." *Broga v. Broga* , 166 So.3d 183, 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Those findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. *Rabbath v. Farid* , 4 So.3d 778, 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). A failure to make the required findings constitutes reversible error. *Broga* , 166 So.3d at 186. Because alimony and attorneys' fees awards are based, at least in part, on the parties' incomes, a reversal of imputed income compels a reversal of these awards as well. *Rabbath* , 4 So.3d at 784-86.

In determining alimony, the trial court imputed income to the former wife without the requisite evidentiary support *651and without making the requisite particularized findings. The trial court determined that the former wife was voluntarily underemployed and could be making $92,000 a year based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the BLS data does not appear in the record, and the court failed to make particularized findings on the local job market for a person with the former wife's occupational qualifications. *See, e.g.* , *Broga v. Broga* , 227 So.3d 239, 240-41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). We therefore reverse the imputation of income to the former wife.

Because the trial court expressly based the alimony award on the imputed income, we must reverse that portion of the final judgment as well. Finally, we must reverse the attorneys' fee award, because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court based the fee award on the former wife's actual or imputed income. On remand, the trial court must base alimony and fees on the former wife's actual income or on properly-supported imputed income.

We REVERSE the final judgment in part, AFFIRM it in part, and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings.

Rowe, Osterhaus, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
Phillip J. SHEA, Appellant, v. Carey HAUGHWOUT, et al., Appellee.

No. 4D17-2237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[August 2, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
United States Bankruptcy Court

Southern District of Florida

In re Invicta Enterprises LLC Case No.

Debtor(s) Chapter 11

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STATEMENT (RULE 7007.1)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7007.1 and to enable the Judges to evaluate possible disqualification or

recusal, the undersigned counsel for Invicta Enterprises LLC in the above captioned action, certifies that the following

is a (are) corporation(s), other than the debtor or a governmental unit, that directly or indirectly own(s) 10% or more of

any class of the corporation's(s') equity interests, or states that there are no entities to report under FRBP 7007.1:

 None [Check if applicable]

January 10, 2022 /s/ Nathan G. Mancuso

Date Nathan G. Mancuso 174254

Signature of Attorney or Litigant

Counsel for Invicta Enterprises LLC

Mancuso Law, P.A.

7777 Glades Rd., Suite 100

Boca Raton, FL 33434

561-245-4705 Fax:561-245-4639

ngm@mancuso-law.com

Software Copyright (c) 1996-2021 Best Case, LLC - www.bestcase.com Best Case Bankruptcy

Case 22-10157-MAM Doc 2 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 1
Laura MAFALE, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. SCHECHER GROUP, INC., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 09, 2018 Rehearing Denied August 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# C_2020254EN.01000101.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9888 – SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Target Portfolio)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 254/01)

On 28 July 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9888. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9888. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2020325EN.01000701.xml

| 2.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/7

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1894, and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1890 concerning restrictive measures in view of Turkey’s unauthorised drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean

(2020/C 325/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Mehmet Ferruh AKALIN (no 1), and Mr Ali Coscun NAMOGLU (no 2), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1894 (1), and Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1890 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of Turkey’s unauthorised drilling activities in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 12 October 2020, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 291, 12.11.2019, p. 47.

(2)  OJ L 291, 12.11.2019, p. 3.

---
### year 2006-2008 2007-2009 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013

12.4 11.4 9.7 7.2 5.5

Redlands 5.2 Crestline

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

0000-0001 0000-0002 0000-0003 0000-0004 0000-0005 0000-0006**1 -** **h r** **O 3** **, e** **x p** **e c** **t e** **d e** **x c** **e e** **d a** **n c** **e s** **p e** **r y** **e a** **r** 

# South **Coast 1**

**- hour**  **DV monitor**

**, 2006** 

**- 2013** 

CrestlineCrestline
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00425-CV

Daniel Martinez

v.

Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. d/b/a Dollar General

On appeal from the

332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-4247-16-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 21, 2018
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2020046EN.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/9 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9725 — Ardian/Groupe Cérélia)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 46/09)

1.

On 31 January 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2020046EN.01000901-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ardian France SA (‘Ardian’, FRANCE), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Groupe Cérélia (FRANCE), via Osiris SAS. |

Ardian acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Groupe Cérélia.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ardian France is a private equity firm that manages and advises investment funds with shareholdings in various companies around the world. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Groupe Cérélia is an international group specialising in the manufacture and marketing of doughs and bakery products. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2020046EN.01000901-E0002), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9725 — Ardian/Groupe Cérélia

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

E-mail: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2020046EN.01000901-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2020046EN.01000901-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
July 1, 2015

Mr. Jean

- christophe D. E. Dick

Visual Nitro

1307 19st Apartment 1A

Santa Monica

, CA 90404

Dear Mr. Dick:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21, Subpart H; § § 45.23, 91.103, 91.109, 91,119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b),

91.401−91.417 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It expl ains why we

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 5, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Visual Nitro into the public

docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1290 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request woul d be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear fro m you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

B rittany New ton

Program Analyst

, Air men and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - (-)documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - california(1)

## By Year

Historical        March 8, 2018        Location of maximum land subsidence in U.S. Levels at 1925 and 1977.

Brochures        October 17, 2019        Powell Center 2019 Seminar: NASA’S GRACE SATELLITE: WHAT IT CAN AND...
Calmino F. WOODS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 2018 Rehearing Denied September 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NANNACO, Inc., a Texas corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Steve Careaga,
Principal Executive and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby
certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350), that to their knowledge:

(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.



-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Executive Officer
Date


/s/ Steve Careaga
-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Financial Officer
Date: May 11, 2005

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