alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50535

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO JIRON-MALDONADO, also

known as Michael Dixon-Dublon,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-166-ALL-PRM

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Alejandro Jiron-Maldonado 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. 

Jiron-Maldonado 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
No. 03-50535

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Jiron-Maldonado 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. 

Jiron-Maldonado 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.
Take Time To Care For Yourself... For Those Who Need You

This document was developed 

by the FDA’s Office of 

Women’s Health (OWH) and 

the National Association of 

Chain Drug Stores (NACDS).

www.fda.gov/womens
About 30% to 50% of those who 

use medicines do not use them as 

directed. This causes more doctor 

visits, hospital stays, lost wages, 

and changed prescriptions. All this 

costs Americans more than $100 

billion each year.

Adults often take care of 

medicines for the whole family as 

well as themselves. So we need to 

read the label, avoid problems, ask 

questions, and keep a record.

1. READ THE LABEL

Before you take any medicine, 

read the label. The label should 

show:

List of ingredients - If you 

know you are allergic to anything 

in the medicine, don’t use it. Ask 

your doctor or pharmacist for a 

different medicine.

Warnings - Read these carefully.

The expiration date - Do not use 

a medicine after the date on the 

bottle. It may not work as well. 

For more information on your 

medicines ask your pharmacist.

2. AVOID PROBLEMS

Medicines can cause problems or 

side effects such as sleepiness, 

vomiting, bleeding, headaches, or 

rashes. Ask about the side effects 

of the medicines you are taking. 

Talk with your doctor, pharmacist, 

or nurse. 

Organize your medicines.

Do not skip taking your 

medicines.

Do not share medicines.

Do not take medicine in the dark.

3. ASK QUESTIONS

• What is the medicine's name?

• Is there a generic available?

• Why am I taking this medicine?

• When should I take it?

• Should I take this on an empty 

stomach or with food?

• Is it safe to drink alcohol with 

it?

• If I forget to take it, what 

should I do?

• How much should I take?

• How long am I to take it?

• What problems should I watch 

for?

If you are pregnant or nursing a 

baby, seek the advice of a health 

professional before taking any 

medication or diet supplement.

Talk with your doctor, pharmacist, 

or nurse. She/he will be happy to 

help you.
NAME:

DOCTOR: PHONE NUMBER:

Go to Drugs@FDA to find more information about your medicines
ex4_1.htm


    
      

    

     

    

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR
OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF A BANK AND ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.

    


    THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE "SECURITIES ACT"), OR THE SECURITIES
LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD
OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT WHILE A REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING1'IIERETO
IS IN EYEECT UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO
AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SUCH ACT OR SUCH LAWS. EACH PURCHASER OF THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IS NOTIFIED THAT THE SELLER MAY BE
RELYING ON THE EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE
I44A THEREUNDER ANY TRANSFEREE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT
BY ITS ACCEPTANCE HEREOF (I) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS A "QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL
BUYER" (AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT), (2) AGREES THAT IT
WILL NOT OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS
INSTRUMENT EXCEPT (A) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH IS THEN
EFFECTIVE UNDER THE SECURITIES ACE, (B) FOR SO LONG AS THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR RESALE PURSUANT TO RULE 144A, TO
A PERSON IT. REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A "QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL
BUYER" AS DEFINED IN RULE I44A UNDER T'HE SECURITIES ACT THAT PURCHASES FOR ITS
OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE
ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER TO WHOM NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE TRANSFER IS
BEING MADE IN RELIANCE ON RULE 144A, (C) TO THE ISSUER OR (D) PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER AVAILABLE EXEMPTION
FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND (3) AGREES THAT IT
WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT
ARE TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF THIS
LEGEND.

    


    THE
CORPORATION WILL, UPON REQUEST, FURNISH ANY SHAREHOLDER, WITHOUT CHARGE,
INFORMATION IN WRITING AS TO THE DESIGNATIONS, RELATIVE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES AND
LIMITATIONS OF ALL CLASSES OF SHARES AND ANY SERIES. THEREOF.

     

    

    
      


       

      For Value
Received, _________________hereby sell, assign and transfer
unto__________________________________________________________Shares represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocable constitute and appoint
___________________________________________ Attorney to transfer the said Shares
on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in
the premises.

       

      Dated
___________________

       

       

      _______________________________

       

      


       

      In the
presence of ____________________________
**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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Total Nutraceutical Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Marvin S. Hausman, M.D. Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 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. 

| Dated:  October 19, 2010

By:  /s/ Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Marvin S. Hausman, M.D.

 

       Acting Principal Accounting and Financial Officer 

               This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

               A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1141

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Gary E. Sutton, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 2007

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following Gary Sutton’s (Sutton) conviction for being a felon in possession of

firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the district court1

sentenced Sutton to 280 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release, and

imposed a $23,431.92 fine and $100 special assessment. Sutton appeals, challenging

an evidentiary ruling by the district court and also arguing his sentence is

unreasonable and so grossly disproportionate to Sutton’s offense that his sentence

violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. 
-2-

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary ruling, see

United States v. Johnson, 463 F.3d 803, 808 (8th Cir. 2006), and the reasonableness

of Sutton’s sentence, see United States v. McMorrow, 471 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir.

2006). We review de novo whether Sutton’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to

the crime committed and thus violates due process and ultimately the Eighth

Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See United States

v. Weis, __ F.3d __, No. 06-2996, 2007 WL 1437490, at *2, *6 (8th Cir. May 17,

2007) (rejecting the defendant’s Eighth Amendment challenge upon finding the

defendant’s sentence was “not ‘the rare case in which a threshold comparison of the

crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of gross

disproportionality’” (quoting Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 (2003) (quoting

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991)))). As an armed career criminal,

Sutton faced a sentence, as specified by Congress, at or near the statutory maximum,

which in this case is life imprisonment. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(h); United States v.

Maloney, 466 F.3d 663, 669 (8th Cir. 2006).

Having carefully considered Sutton’s arguments and the record, we find no

abuse of discretion or legal error by the district court. Therefore, we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

# 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
on Form 20-F of Guildhall Minerals Ltd. (the Company) for the year ended March
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), that I, Michael Laidlaw, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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: September 10, 2008

| |  | /s/ Michael Laidlaw
Michael LaidlawPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided by Michael Laidlaw and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
Staff upon request.



---

---
Alvin W. BYRD, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-1108.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 10.16


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”)
is made and entered into by and between Cano Petroleum, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Fort Worth, Texas
(the “Company”), and Ben Daitch, an
individual currently residing in Dallas County, Texas (“Employee”), effective
as of the 31st day of December, 2008 (the “Amendment
Effective Date”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into that certain
Employment Agreement dated June 23, 2008 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend, alter,
modify, and change the provisions of the Agreement to bring the provisions into
compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended;


 


NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual
benefits to be obtained hereunder and other good and valuation consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and confessed, the
Company and Employee do hereby agree to amend, alter, modify and change the
Agreement, as of the Amendment Effective Date as follows:


 


1.             Section 12 of
the Agreement is hereby adding the following new sentence at the end of the
first paragraph of said Section:


 


Subject
to Section 18 below, all payments made pursuant to this Section 12
shall be paid in a single lump sum within ten (10) days following Employee’s
termination of employment, and any provision of in-kind benefits hereunder
shall not affect the in-kind benefits provided in any other taxable year.


 


2.             Except as
specifically amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect as
originally written.


 


Signatures


 


To
evidence the binding effect of the covenants and agreements described above,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the date first
written above.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  THE
  COMPANY:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CANO
  PETROLEUM, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
       /s/ S. Jeffrey
  Johnson

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  S.
  Jeffrey Johnson, Chairman and CEO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
       /s/ Ben Daitch

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ben
  Daitch
* 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

May 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40214

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MAGDALENO ALCANTAR-CHAIDEZ

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-02-CR-512-1

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Magdaleno Alcantar-Chaidez appeals his convictions,

following a jury trial, on charges that he conspired to possess

more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to

distribute it, and possessed more than 100 kilograms of marijuana

with the intent to distribute it, all in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He contends that the evidence

produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. 
No. 03-40214

-2-

In effect, Alcantar-Chaidez is challenging the district court’s

denial of his motion for acquittal, an issue which we review de

novo. See United States v. Leed, 981 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.

1993).

Viewing the evidence produced at trial in the light most

favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have

found that the evidence established Alcantar-Chaidez’s guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt for both offenses. See United States

v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 922-23 (5th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Ivy, 973 F.2d 1184, 1888 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

h1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145689 & (11)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145689

COA: 310285

Macomb CC: 2001-000827-FC

PHILLIP J. POWELL JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand is 

DENIED.
Case 3:16-cr-00477-VC   Document 131-4   Filed 10/11/17   Page 1 of 3

Case 3:16-cr-00477-VC   Document 131-4   Filed 10/11/17   Page 2 of 3

Case 3:16-cr-00477-VC   Document 131-4   Filed 10/11/17   Page 3 of 3
* 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 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.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.42


                              [Company Letterhead]

January 21, 2004


                                LETTER AGREEMENT

Marian Sanfilippo, Trustee
James J. Sanfilippo Irrv Trust Agreement Dated 10/08/96
2299 Busse Road
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007


        In connection with a public offering of the Common Stock of John B.
Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. (the "Company"), you have indicated a desire to include
in such offering 111,200 shares of the Common Stock of the Company owned or
controlled by you, plus an additional number of shares to be determined pursuant
to the underwriters' over-allotment option. All such shares you wish to include
in the public offering are presently held in the form of Class A Common Stock of
the Company ("Class A Stock") and would have to be converted into shares of
Common Stock to be included in the offering.

        By signing this Letter Agreement, you agree that, simultaneously upon
the purchase of the Company Common Stock by the underwriters in connection with
the public offering, you shall convert into shares of Company Common Stock (1)
111,200 shares of Class A Stock, plus (2) the number of shares of your Class A
Stock equal to the number of shares of Company Common Stock the underwriters
elect to purchase from you pursuant to their over-allotment option.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you and the Company agree that such conversion
will not in any way be deemed effective (including, without limitation, for
purposes of Part 4 of the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation)
unless the underwriters purchase our Common Stock. If the underwriters do not
purchase your shares, none of your Class A Stock shall have been converted
pursuant hereto.

        Under no circumstances shall this Letter Agreement be deemed to
constitute a written notice of conversion under Part 4(f) of the Company's
Restated Certificate of Incorporation.


                               Very truly yours,

                               /s/ MICHAEL J. VALENTINE

                               Michael J. Valentine
                               John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.
                               Executive Vice President Finance, Chief
                                  Financial Officer and Secretary





                                               /s/ MARIAN SANFILIPPO
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                      Marian Sanfilippo, Trustee of the James J.
                                       Sanfilippo Irrv Trust Agreement
                                                Dated 10/08/96