alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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 19, 2020 

Order 

Clerk

May 19, 2020

156849(141)

RAFAELI, LLC, and ANDRE 

OHANESSIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 156849

v COA: 330696

Oakland CC: 2015-147429-CZ

OAKLAND COUNTY and ANDREW 

MEISNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to strike the response of defendantsappellees to the plaintiffs-appellants’ supplemental authority is DENIED.
EX PARTE Charles Garland PITMAN and Sharon K. Doviet, as Guardian ad litem for the minor children

(In re: Krista Chandler Pitman v. Charles Garland Pitman)

2170495

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 27, 2018

Dismissed.
Kwesi PHILPOT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3419

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 2 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 4 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 5 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 6 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 7 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 8 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 9 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 10 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 11 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 12 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 13 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 414-5 Filed 06/18/18 Page 14 of 14
Exhibit 32



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of SFSB, Inc. (the Company) each certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Philip E. Logan                       
|Philip E. Logan                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer     
|November 18, 2005                         
|                                          
|/s/ Sophie Torin Wittelsberger            
|Sophie Torin Wittelsberger                
|Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 18, 2005
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 263 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States v. 

Taylor. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in 

United States v. Taylor. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Taylor, Cr. No. 21– 

6, pending in the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Virginia, the prosecution has requested the production of testimony and, if necessary, 

documents from Nicole Meservey, an employee of the office of Senator Mark Warner; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the Senate with 

respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 

or documents relating to their official responsibilities; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 263 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Nicole Meservey, an employee of the 

2 office of Senator Mark Warner, and any other current or 

3 former employee of the Senator’s office from whom rel4 evant evidence may be necessary, are authorized to testify 

5 and produce documents in the case of United States v. 

6 Taylor, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

7 should be asserted. 

8 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

9 represent Senator Warner and any current or former em10 ployees of his office in connection with the production of 

11 evidence authorized in section one of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Koty Cheyenne LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2307

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Case No. 17-cv-0072 BLF (NC) 

Settlement Conference Order 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

 FINJAN LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072 BLF

NOTICE AND ORDER SETTING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE 

Re: Dkt. No. 734 

 This case was referred to this Court by District Judge Beth Labson Freeman for a 

settlement conference. The conference will be held on December 11, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in 

Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California. If a party is unable to 

participate in the conference on this date, that party must meet and confer with opposing 

counsel to find another date on which all parties are available and then contact courtroom 

deputy Lili Harrell as soon as possible at Lili_Harrell@cand.uscourts.gov or 408.535.5343. 

Please see this Court’s Settlement Conference Standing Order for more information. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 2, 2020 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 735 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 1
1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING

DATE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING 

DATE

Re: Dkt. No. 271

The parties’ Request to Amend Class Certification Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 273 Filed 08/10/18 Page 1 of 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RODERICK MOSS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2551

[ November 15, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit ; Barbara McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No.

91

- 15752 CF10A

.

Roderick Moss, Chipley, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EX PARTE D.E. and T.G.

(In re: Russell County Department of Human Resources v. D.E. and T.G.)

2170580

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 22, 2018

Mand. pet. denied.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 16-cv-07392-EMC 

LAW OFFICE OF P. RANDALL NOAH 

P. RANDALL NOAH (State Bar No. 136452) 

21 Orinda Way, Suite C, #316 

Orinda, California 94563 

Telephone: (925) 253-5540 

Facsimile: (925) 253-5542 

E-Mail: pnoah@ix.netcome.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

DONALD STOCKS 

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 

SUSAN W. Pangborn (State Bar No. 282533) 

JAMES SMITH (State Bar No. 190050) 

KENDRA CHAPMAN (State Bar No. 294030) 

Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 576-0200 

Facsimile: (415) 576-0300 

E-Mail: spangborn@kilpatricktownsend.com 

 james.smith@kilpatricktownsend.com 

 kchapman@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

AT&T SERVICES, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD STOCKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T UMBRELLA BENEFIT 

PLAN NO. 1, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-07392-EMC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE 

Honorable Edward M. Chen 

Complaint filed December 29, 2016 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 16-cv-07392-EMC - 1 - 

Plaintiff Donald Stocks and Defendant AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 hereby 

stipulate and agree as follows: 

This action shall be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, with each party to bear its 

own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through counsel of record. 

Dated: November 10, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF P. RANDALL NOAH 

By: 

P. Randall Noah 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

DONALD STOCKS 

Dated: November 10, 2017 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 

By: 

Susan W. Pangborn 

Attorney for Defendant 

AT&T SERVICES, INC. 

ATTESTATION REGARDING SIGNATURE 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of 

perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory. 

Dated: November 10, 2017 

 Susan W. Pangborn 

/s/ P. Randall Noah

/s/ Susan W. Pangborn

/s/ Susan W. Pangborn
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 16-cv-07392-EMC - 2 - 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action shall be dismissed 

in its entirety, with prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________________________ 

 

Edward M. Chen 

United States District Judge 

13576492V.1

11/17/17

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                White Oak Campus Information

White Oak Campus Information Home
          About FDA
          Jobs and Training at FDA
          Buildings and Facilities
          White Oak Campus Information
          White Oak Shuttle Bus Stop Location at the Medical Center Metro StationWhite Oak Campus Information White Oak Shuttle Bus Stop Location at the Medical Center Metro Station
  
  	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    PrintWhite Oak Shuttle Bus Stop Location at the Medical Center Metro Station

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      03/28/2018White Oak Campus Information
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
Raquel Yurima ROJAS VILLARROEL, Appellant, v. Eduardo Jose GONZALEZ SANCHEZ, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Clarent Energy Services, Inc. and Graham Gilliam v. Leasing
Ventures, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00821

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 50734

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

Appellants filed a motion to stay this appeal in November, advising this Court that the judgment appealed was interlocutory and that the parties had reached an agreement that should lead to the signing of a final jud gment. Approximately one month later, appellants filed a notice of appeal from the judgment signed on November 28, 2018. Because a final judgment has been signed, we dismiss the motion to stay as moot

. The Court lacks a clerk’s record containing the final judgment. Accordingly, we direct the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record within 15 days of the date of this order containing the judgment signed on November 28, 2018.

Appellants’ brief is due within 30 days after the supplemental clerk ’s record is filed

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

__

/s/ Justice Richard Hightower

_____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ February 12, 2019

____
E.M., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc.



 



EXHIBIT 10.7


Schedule identifying agreements entered into between Mindspeed Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) and each of the following persons, substantially identical
to the Form of Employment Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.8.1 to the
Company’s Registration Statement on Form 10 (File No. 1-31650).


Name






Simon Biddiscombe



David W. Carroll



Mojy C. Chian



Harry H. Davoody



Raouf Y. Halim



Thomas J. Medrek



Wayne K. Nesbit



Daryush Shamlou



Thomas A. Stites



Ian J. Stock



Bradley W. Yates
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Shawn OConnor, Chief Executive Officer of Pharsight
Corporation (the Company), and Cynthia Stephens, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2005, and to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 29th day of June 2005.



/s/     SHAWN M. OCONNOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/s/     CYNTHIA STEPHENS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Case 3:17-mj-70071-MRGD Document 14 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:17-mj-70071-MRGD Document 14 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:17-mj-70071-MRGD Document 14 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 3
Arthur TURKISH, etc., Appellant, v. Carole BRODY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2783

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER PROFFITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRIEND TRUSTED, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 3:17-cv-281

[proposed] ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Time for

Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby GRANTED. Defendant

shall file its response to Plaintiff’s Complaint by April 14, 2017.

Date: .

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Judge

March 15, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00281-MMC Document 16 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 1
EX PARTE SEALED CASE

(In re: Sealed Case)

CR-17-0101

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
EXHIBIT 10

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 25-10 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 17-cv-00225 NC 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORNG SEE,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID JENNINGS, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 17-cv-00225 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-3

Petitioner Korng See, an immigration detainee, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241. See alleges he is in the government’s custody, that his indefinite 

detention is unlawful under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and 

as a violation of See’s substantive due process. See requests the Court to grant his writ of 

habeas corpus and order him released. Dkt. No. 1. See also filed an application asking the 

Court to issue an order to show cause, directing the government to show cause why his 

petition for a writ should not be granted. Dkt. No. 1-3.

The Court considered See’s petition, and finds good cause shown under 28 U.S.C. § 

2243. Thus, See’s application for an order to show cause is GRANTED. The Court 

therefore ORDERS:

1. The government must file its response to See’s petition by February 22, 2017.

2. See must file a reply to the government’s response by February 27, 2017.

3. The Court will hold a hearing on See’s petition on March 1, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., at 

Case 5:17-cv-00225-NC Document 13 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No.17-cv-00225 NC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

280 S. First St., San Jose, CA 95113 in Courtroom 7, 4th Floor. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2017 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00225-NC Document 13 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 2
* 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. 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. 02-41554 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JESUS RIOS, JR., also known as Manuel Rivera, also known as Francisco Galarza-Rios, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-02-CR-734-ALL

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Rios, Jr. 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. Rios 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. Rios thus contendsNo. 02-41554 -2- that his sentence should not exceed the maximum 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. Rios 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. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Jennifer KEYES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0781

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 08, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.