alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individualcapacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust. 

 

SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR

SABINE ROYALTYTRUST
By: /s/ Ron E. Hooper
Ron E. Hooper

SVP, Royalty Trust Management

Date: August 7, 2020 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129983 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129983 COA: 264567 Kent CC: 87-041754-FC HAROLD STAFFNEY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 9, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
#### Michael TIMMS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. T. ROSEN, New Folsom State Prison; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-16341.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2004.*

Decided April 26, 2004.

Michael Timms, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Timms appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Timms’ amended complaint did not allege facts showing that he *490was disciplined without due process of law, or that the discipline imposed amounted to atypical and significant hardship. *See Wolff v. McDonnell,*418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (holding that a prisoner facing disciplinary charges must receive timely written notice, an opportunity to present evidence, and legal assistance if appropriate); *Resnick,*213 F.3d at 448 (explaining that “a prisoner possesses a liberty interest under the federal constitution when a change occurs in confinement that imposes an atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).

Timms’ motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         I, Lisa K. Vansickle, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of First Banks,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

          (1)  The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2007 (the "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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 Company.


Date:  November 14, 2007

                                   By: /s/ Lisa K. Vansickle
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                           Lisa K. Vansickle
                                           Senior Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                           Officer)
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Northern District of California

ERICKSON PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

3:17-cv-00127

RETIREMENT PLAN ADVISORS, INC

RETIREMENT PLAN ADVISORS, INC

c/o BFKPN CORPORATE SERVICES INC.

200 WEST MADISON ST STE 3900

CHICAGO, IL 60606

KEVIN McCULLOCH

155 EAST 56TH STREET

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022

kevin@mccullochiplaw.com

Case 5:17-cv-00127-HRL Document 2 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

3:17-cv-00127

0.00

Case 5:17-cv-00127-HRL Document 2 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 5 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 6 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 7 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 8 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 9 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 10 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 11 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 12 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 13 of 14
Case 3:17-cv-00925-LB Document 10 Filed 03/15/17 Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT A 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 1-1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 4
Mario Antez KEITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1494

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Steven Edward Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant claims he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court erred in granting the State's request to strike a juror for cause. We find Appellant's argument meritless, because he failed to preserve the argument by objecting before the jury was sworn. *Carratelli v. State* , 961 So. 2d 312, 318 (Fla. 2007) (requiring counsel to renew an objection before the jury is sworn); *Zach v. State* , 911 So. 2d 1190, 1204 (Fla. 2005) (finding waiver absent a timely objection before the jury is sworn). Absent the required objection, this issue was waived below and is not preserved for appeal. Appellant has not argued or demonstrated fundamental error. We therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
DB2/ 35904565.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STARVONA HARRIS and JONATHAN 

STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of 

those similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

BEST BUY STORES, L.P., a limited 

partnership, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:17-cv-00446-HSG

ORDER DENYING JOINT 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE DATE 

Dept.: Courtroom 2 (4th Floor) 

Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 
DB2/ 35904565.1 

 1

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COSTA MESA 

The Court, having reviewed the Joint Stipulation to Continue Trial Date and Pretrial 

Conference Date submitted by Plaintiff Starvona Harris and Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P., and 

upon good cause shown, orders as follows: 

 The Court hereby GRANTS the request and ORDERS as follows: 

1. The Pretrial Conference in this matter shall be continued to May 21, 2019 at 3:00 

p.m.; and 

2. The Trial in this matter shall be continued to June 3, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 8, 2019 HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 

District Court Judge
Office of Global Policy and Strategy 

OGPS STATEMENT

July 27, 2023

FDA Mutual Recognition Agreement with Swissmedic Enters Into Force

Starting today, the U.S. and Switzerland can begin to rely on each other’s factual findings from a 

good manufacturing practice (GMP) inspection of a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The FDA, the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative, and the Swiss Confederation signed an 

Agreement on Mutual Recognition (MRA) on January 12, opening the door for the FDA and the 

Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products (Swissmedic) to utilize each other’s GMP inspections. 

But the agreement couldn’t enter into force, i.e., become operational, until the FDA had 

determined that Swissmedic is capable of conducting inspections that meet U.S. requirements, 

and Swissmedic had made a similar determination with respect to the FDA.

Both agencies have now completed those determinations based on the criteria and procedures 

outlined in the MRA and recognized each other under the MRA.

In addition to covering good manufacturing practice inspections of facilities making human 

drugs, the MRA with Swissmedic also includes veterinary drugs.

The MRA with Swissmedic becomes the third operational MRA to enter into force. MRAs are 

also in effect with the European Union and the United Kingdom. 

“MRAs are an effective tool in today’s global pharmaceutical market, allowing the FDA to work 

more efficiently and maximize its resources” said Mark Abdoo, FDA’s Associate Commissioner 

for Global Policy and Strategy. 

Over 250 pharmaceutical companies are based in Switzerland, ranging from start-ups all the

way to multinationals, according to Swissmedic, which has issued manufacturing licenses to 

approximately 370 sites across the country. 

“Sharing information will help the FDA and Swissmedic avoid the duplication of drug 

inspections, lower inspection costs and enable regulators to devote more resources to other 

parts of the world,” Abdoo said.

For additional information:

Frequently Asked Questions: Mutual Recognition Agreements

Mutual Recognition Agreements

###
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1314

To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to require 

the 2005 base closure and realignment process to adhere to certain 

requirements regarding the preservation of military depot capabilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2005

Mr. ORTIZ (for himself and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

of 1990 to require the 2005 base closure and realignment 

process to adhere to certain requirements regarding the 

preservation of military depot capabilities.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADHERENCE TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES ON 

4 PRESERVATION OF MILITARY DEPOT CAPA5 BILITIES DURING 2005 ROUND OF BASE CLO6 SURES AND REALIGNMENTS. 

7 The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 

8 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 
2

•HR 1314 IH 

1 U.S.C. 2687 note) is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 2915. ADHERENCE TO CERTAIN AUTHORITIES ON 

4 PRESERVATION OF MILITARY DEPOT CAPA5 BILITIES DURING 2005 ROUND OF BASE CLO6 SURES AND REALIGNMENTS. 

7 ‘‘(a) ADHERENCE REQUIRED.—The base closure and 

8 realignment actions performed under section 2914, and 

9 any activities carried out to implement the closure or re10 alignment of military installations as a result of such base 

11 closure and realignment actions, shall reflect a strict ad12 herence to the provisions of title 10, United States Code, 

13 for the maintenance of government-owned, government14 operated depot-level maintenance, repair, and logistics ca15 pabilities within the Department of Defense, including the 

16 provisions of chapter 146 of such title and other applicable 

17 provisions. 

18 ‘‘(b) NO WAIVERS AUTHORIZED.—Activities carried 

19 out to implement the closure or realignment of military 

20 installations as a result of base closure and realignment 

21 actions performed under section 2914 may not include a 

22 waiver authorized by paragraph (2) or (3) of section 

23 2464(b) or section 2466(b) of title 10, United States 

24 Code. 
3

•HR 1314 IH 

1 ‘‘(c) BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACTIONS

2 DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘base closure and re3 alignment actions’ means the following: 

4 ‘‘(1) The preparation by the Secretary of De5 fense of recommendations on installations for closure 

6 or realignment under this part or any subsequent 

7 base closure law. 

8 ‘‘(2) The review by the Commission of the rec9 ommendations referred to in paragraph (1). 

10 ‘‘(3) The review by the President of the rec11 ommendations referred to in paragraphs (1) and 

12 (2).’’.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7923

CALVIN LEE STANSBURY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES M. CONDON,

the Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-201-3-22-BC)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lee Stansbury, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Stansbury v. South Carolina, No. CA-96-201-3-22-BC (D.S.C. Dec. 9,

1996). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S. June

23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Amendment to the Offer Letter to Bruce Langos



 Exhibit 10.7 
 December 22, 2008 
 Bruce Langos 
 Teradata
Corporation 
 Dear Bruce: 
 This letter amends the letter
agreement between you and Teradata Corporation (“Teradata”) dated September 20, 2007 (the “Agreement”) and shall be effective as of December 31, 2008. As we have discussed, the amendment set forth below is necessary in
order for the Agreement to comply with the new tax rules imposed under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). 
  

	1.	The section of the Agreement entitled “Arbitration” is amended by adding the following at the end of the sixth sentence thereof:


 “at any time from the Start Date through your remaining lifetime (or, if longer, through the 20th anniversary of the
Start Date). To the extent that the reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses is considered “deferred compensation” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, then the reimbursement
must be paid as soon as reasonably practicable after, but in any event not later than the end of the calendar year in which, you are declared the prevailing party. The amount of such attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses that
Teradata is obligated to pay in any given calendar year shall not affect the attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses that Teradata is obligated to pay in any other calendar year, and your right to have Teradata pay such
attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses may not be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit.” 
  

	2.	Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 

 Please indicate your acceptance of the amendment to the Agreement by signing below and returning a copy to me. 
  

									
	Sincerely,	 		 		 	
				
	TERADATA CORPORATION	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Molly A. Treese
	 		 		 	
		 	Molly A. Treese	 		 		 	
		 	Chief Corporate & Governance Counsel and Assistant Secretary	 		 	
				
	Agreed and Accepted:	 		 		 	
				
	 /s/ Bruce A. Langos
	 		 	 12/23/08
	 	
	Bruce Langos	 		 	Date
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1112]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Open Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 8 February 1995.
    Time of Meeting: 0900-1600.
    Place: Arlington, VA.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board Infrastructure and Environment 
Issue Group will meet to develop a working outline in preparation 
for writing a study report on ``Natural Attenuation as a Remedial 
Alternative.'' Any interested person may attend, appear before, or 
file statements with the committee at the time and in the manner 
permitted by the committee. The ASB Administrative Officer, Sally 
Warner, may be contacted for further information at (703) 695-3039/
7046.
Sally A. Warner,
Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 95-1112 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
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

CHUNG KAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SORIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.17-cv-00873-HSG 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 11/21/2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Chung Kao ID: J-56314

San Quentin State Prison

1 Main Street

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: 11/21/2017

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Nikki D. Riley, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 

5, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00325-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF JOSEPHINE WALKER, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Waller County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. P86-027

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed June 1, 2021. On September 23, 

2021, appellant Nancy Ashley Walker filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
* 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

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40262

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ABDON MACHADO-ALBERTO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1696-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Abdon MachadoAlberto raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.