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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50395 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RANULFO ESQUIVEL-GUTIERREZ, also known as Omar Aguila Otero, also known as Francisco Ruiz Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1993-ALL-PM

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ranulfo Esquivel-Gutierrez 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. Esquivel contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have beenNo. 03-50395 -2- alleged in his indictment. Esquivel maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
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. Esquivel 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.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2003 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan K.
Rosburg, the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of
the Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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, distributable income and changes
in trust corpus of the Trust.



| | /s/ Susan K. Rosburg
Susan K. Rosburg
Trust Officer
U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
August 11, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Trust for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.A





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 Annual Report of GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Dr. Gary T. Hirst, President (Principal Executive Officer) of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to GEROVA Financial Group, Ltd. and will be retained by GEROVA
Financial Group, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.




/s/
      Gary T. HirstGary
      T. HirstPresident(Principal
      Executive
Officer)




June 2,
2010
Janice ALARHABI, petitioner, v. Mason HORCHEL, et al.

No. 12-9038.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Martin L. MANLEY, petitioner, v. UNKNOWN PARTY.

No. 12-8490.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Beverly L. SCOTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. PENNYMAC CORP., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3926

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 01, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
MAXTOR CORPORATION


                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1




                  COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
             For the Three Months and Six Months Ended
             September 30, 1995 and September 24, 1994

               (In thousands, except per share data)





                          Three months ended      Six Months Ended
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Sept. 30,  Sept. 24,   Sept. 30,  Sept. 24,
                            1995       1994        1995       1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIMARY & FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average number
 of common shares
 outstanding during
 the period                 52,866     50,256       52,476     50,091
                          =========  =========    =========  =========

Net loss                  $(44,488)  $(54,717)    $(58,315)  $(66,906)
                          =========  =========    =========  =========

Net loss per share        $  (0.84)  $  (1.09)    $  (1.11)  $  (1.34)
                          =========  =========    =========  =========
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7325

ROGER EARL COLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; JUDGE W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03109-D)

Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Earl Coley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

reconsideration of the order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action as frivolous. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). As Coley’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) relief, he has forfeited appellate review of that 

decision. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Although Coley 

asserts that the district court should have appointed him counsel during the proceedings 

below, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s failure to appoint counsel 

sua sponte. See Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of 

review); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984) (requiring exceptional 

circumstances to support appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other 

grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989). 

Because we have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous, we dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Jose ZAINES-VARGAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7201.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1242 

To establish the American Veterans Congressional Internship Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. HOLT (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, and Mr. EVANS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

House Administration 

A BILL 

To establish the American Veterans Congressional Internship 

Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMERICAN VETERANS CONGRESSIONAL IN4 TERNSHIP PROGRAM. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is hereby established 

6 the American Veterans Congressional Internship Pro7 gram, under which each Member of the House of Rep8 resentatives may hire, for a period not to exceed 12 

9 months, one additional employee who meets the eligibility 
2 

•HR 1242 IH 

1 criteria described in subsection (b) to serve as the Amer2 ican Veteran Congressional Intern. 

3 (b) CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY.— 

4 (1) IN GENERAL.—An individual is eligible to 

5 serve as an American Veteran Congressional Intern 

6 for the office of a Member of the House of Rep7 resentatives if the individual meets such criteria as 

8 the Committee on House Administration may estab9 lish. 

10 (2) SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND ASSUR11 ANCES.—Under the criteria established under para12 graph (1), an individual shall not be eligible to serve 

13 as an Intern for the office of a Member of the House 

14 of Representatives unless the individual provides the 

15 following: 

16 (A) A certification that the individual 

17 served in the Armed Forces of the United 

18 States or in the reserve components of the 

19 armed forces. 

20 (B) A certification that the individual was 

21 honorably discharged from such service. 

22 (c) COMPENSATION.—A Member of the House of 

23 Representatives shall pay the American Veteran Congres24 sional Intern serving in the Member’s office a total salary 

25 of $25,000, to be paid to the Intern at a rate of $2,083.33 
3 

•HR 1242 IH 

1 per month out of applicable accounts of the House of Rep2 resentatives. 

3 SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OR MEM4 BER’S REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE. 

5 The employment of an American Veteran Congres6 sional Intern by a Member of the House of Representa7 tives, and the payment of a salary to such an Intern by 

8 a Member, shall be in addition to all personnel and allow9 ances otherwise made available to Members under other 

10 provisions of law, rule, or other authority. 

11 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

12 The Committee on House Administration shall pre13 scribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 

14 this Act. 

15 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 

16 In this Act, the term ‘‘Member of the House of Rep17 resentatives’’ includes a Delegate or Resident Commis18 sioner to Congress. 

Æ
Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**I, Dennis M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.
Travis CARTER, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 12-8860.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) Case No: 3:12-CR-7(01) RM

)

JOSHUA SCHERRBAUM )

ORDER

No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge’s findings and

recommendation upon a plea of guilty issued on January 30, 2012 [Doc. No. 7]. 

Accordingly, the court now ADOPTS those findings and recommendation,

ACCEPTS defendant Joshua Scherrbaum’s plea of guilty, and FINDS the

defendant guilty of Count 1 of the Information, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1).

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 22, 2012 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01089-CV MARK SANDERS, Appellant V. DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Reichek, and Justice Garcia Opinion by Justice Reichek Appellant filed his brief on March 15, 2024. We th en notified appellant, who is proceeding pro se, that his brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the brief, including that it did not contain an index of authority indicating the pages of the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the case supported by record references. Further, the argument section of th e brief does not contain any citations to the record or to any authoritie s. We instructed appellant to file an amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we–2– cautioned appellant that the app eal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file an amended brief in compliance with the ru les of appellate pro cedure. To date, appellant has failed to do so. The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in a case and to present argument that w ill enable us to decide the case. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, whic h require an appellant to concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite a ppropriate authorities, and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott , No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 (Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist ., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Da llas 2010, no pet.). Even liberally construing appellant’s brief, we c onclude it fails to acquaint the Court with the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear, concise, specific arguments, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38. Although given the opportunity to correct th e brief, appellant did not do so.–3– Under these circumstances, we strike appe llant’s brief and dismiss this appeal.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c).

231089F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARK SANDERS, Appellant
No. 05-23-01089-CV V. DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. Chief Justice Burns and Justice Garcia participating. In accordance with this Court’s opini on of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered July 24, 2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-5-TLS 

)

DEANTRE L. ROGERS )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 37], filed on October 23, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 37] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on November 20, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
H. Con. Res. 15 Agreed to March 29, 2023

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-three 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE 

OFFICERS MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order 

of Police and its auxiliary shall be permitted to sponsor a public 

event, the 42d Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service 

(in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Memorial Service’’), on the 

Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the law enforcement officers 

who died in the line of duty during 2022. 

(b) DATE OF MEMORIAL SERVICE.—The Memorial Service shall 

be held on May 15, 2023, or on such other date as the Speaker 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and 

Administration of the Senate jointly designate, with preparation 

for the event to begin on May 10, 2023, and takedown completed 

on May 16, 2023. 

SEC. 2. USE OF THE CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL HONOR GUARD 

AND PIPE BAND EXHIBITION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order 

of Police and its auxiliary shall be permitted to sponsor a public 

event, the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition (in 

this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Exhibition’’), on the Capitol 

Grounds, in order to allow law enforcement representatives to 

exhibit their ability to demonstrate Honor Guard programs and 

provide for a bagpipe exhibition. 

(b) DATE OF EXHIBITION.—The Exhibition shall be held on May 

14, 2023, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration 

of the Senate jointly designate. 

SEC. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event 

shall be— 

(1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and 

(2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress. 

(b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsors of the Memorial 

Service and Exhibition shall assume full responsibility for all 

expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with 

the events. 
H. Con. Res. 15—2 

SEC. 4. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 

sponsors referred to in section 3(b) are authorized to erect upon 

the Capitol Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

other related structures and equipment, as may be required for 

the Memorial Service and Exhibition. 

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 

restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 

Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations 

on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable 

to the Capitol Grounds, in connection with the events. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-8   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 7