alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50787

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

JUAN GABRIEL SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 2:19-CR-80-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Sanchez-Hernandez appeals the 57-month within-guidelines 

* 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

April 16, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50787 Document: 00515384425 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
No. 19-50787

2

sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed for his conviction

of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He contends that

the sentence enhancement provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional violations of due process because they increase the mandatory minimum sentences 

based on prior convictions that do not have to be proven to a jury beyond a

reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue of whether his eligibility for an 

enhancement under § 1326(b) must be proved to a jury is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). He seeks only to 

preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he maintains, 

subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider 

the issue.

The government moves for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an 

extension of time to file its brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate where, 

among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a 

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of 

the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 

1969). In Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 239−47, the Court held that for a 

statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must 

be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This 

court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule 

Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 

2014); United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625−26 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Thus, Sanchez-Hernandez’s argument is foreclosed.

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is 

AFFIRMED. The motion for an extension is DENIED.

 Case: 19-50787 Document: 00515384425 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2020
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ACR GROUP, INC. 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 ACR Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Trevino, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to 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; and



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



/s/ Alex Trevino, Jr.Alex Trevino, Jr. Chief Executive Officer July 15, 2004




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ACR Group, Inc. and will be retained by ACR Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



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 Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MIR S. IQBAL,

Plaintiff

v. Cause No. 2:12-CV-00056

TEJASHKUMAR M. PATEL,

WARREN JOHNSON and

S-MART PETROLEUM, INC.,

an Indiana Corporation

Defendants

_________________________________________

WARREN JOHNSON and 

S-MART PETROLEUM, Inc.

Counterclaim Plaintiffs

v.

MIR S. IQBAL

Counterclaim Defendant

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Mir S. Iqbal, Defendant Tejashkumar M. Patel and Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Warren 

Johnson and S-Mart Petroleum, Inc., by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that 

this action and all claims, including all counterclaims, and defenses asserted therein be dismissed 

with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The parties 

also withdraw and terminate all pending motions submitted in this action.

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cv-00056-JTM-APR document 102 filed 06/29/18 page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

LANGONE BATSON AND LAVERY

By: /s/ Christopher V. Langone

Christopher V. Langone

By: /s/ Mark T. Lavery

Mark T. Lavery

Attorneys for Mir S. Iqbal

HACKMAN HEWLITT

By: /s/ Anthony S. Ridolfo

Anthony S. Ridolfo

Attorney for Tejashkumar M. Patel

RYAN, MOORE, COOK & TRIPLETT

By: /s/ James D. Moore

James D. Moore, #9286-12

By: /s/ Phillip M. Triplett

Phillip M. Triplett, #31543-49

Attorneys for Warren Johnson

and S-Mart Petroleum, Inc.

USDC IN/ND case 2:12-cv-00056-JTM-APR document 102 filed 06/29/18 page 2 of 2
### ELECTRONIC RECORD 

## COA# 01-11-01125-CR OFFENSE: 42.07 (Harrassment) Elisa Merrill Wilson v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Fort Bend COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No 2 DATE: 03/31/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 10CCR149142

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Elisa Merrill Wilson v. The State of STYLE: Texas CCA #: 

# <oll*lS /{PP£LLAh)T}*> Petition CCADisposition: FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCAIS: DATE: 

# K^/c>Ttc/ JUDGE: 

# DATE: £*•??. /£ 'Z^/f SIGNED: PC:

_ 

# JUDGE: PC'; /jJctU y fro*////jr**/ PUBLISH: DNP:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC RECORD
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-852]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: AMPAC Fine Chemicals Virginia, LLC. has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
                        **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**
                         listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 16, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before August 16, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 5, 2021, AMPAC Fine Chemicals Virginia, LLC., 2820 North Normandy Drive, Petersburg, Virginia 23805-2380, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug code
ScheduleMethylphenidate
1724
IILevomethorphan
9210
IILevorphanol
9220
IIMorphine
9300
IIThebaine
9333
IINoroxymorphone
9668
IITapentadol
9780
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. The company plans to manufacture the above-listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-12812 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIERRENCE MARCELLE SMALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00144-WO-1)

Submitted: November 7, 2012 Decided: November 16, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael A. 

DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tierrence Marcelle Small pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm 

by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2) (2006). In the plea agreement, Small reserved his 

right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. On appeal, 

Small argues that he was unreasonably seized in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment and that any evidence resulting from such 

seizure should have been suppressed. We affirm.

We review factual findings underlying the district 

court’s denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its 

legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Foster, 634 F.3d 

243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). When a suppression motion has been 

denied, this court reviews the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Government. United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 

210, 217 (4th Cir. 2008). This court grants great deference to 

factual findings based on credibility determinations. See

United States v. Moses, 540 F.3d 263, 268-69 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district 

court did not err in resolving the conflicting testimony and 

denying the suppression motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Alan H. Lund, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Lease FinanceCorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 6, 2007       /S/ Alan H. Lund ALAN H. LUND    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer  
-30-
#### PEOPLE ex rel. FORD, Appellants, v. GILLETTE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

January 17 1899.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of William T. Ford, against George L. Gillette and others, assessors of the town of Clifton Park, Saratoga county.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Antonio Francis BUCK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-6321.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

Antonio Francis Buck, Appellant pro se. Jerry Walter Kilgore, Attorney General, Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Francis Buck, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Buck has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *159We 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 178 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 178

        To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

 Mr. Gary G. Miller of California introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on Dichloroethyl Ether.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``DCEE Tariff Suspension Act''.

SEC. 2. DICHLOROETHYL ETHER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.38      Dichloroethyl       Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Ether (1,1'-                                                       31/2014
                         oxybis [2-
                         chloroethane] CL-
                         CH2-CH2-0-CH2-CH2-
                         CL) (provided for
                         in subheading
                         2909.19.18)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric T. Jones, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.





/s/ Eric T. Jones

By  ____________________________________

Eric T. Jones

Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer

Date:  August 16, 2011
#### RYAN, Respondent, v. HALLIGAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Anna F. Ryan against John J. Halligan, executor, etc.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with' costs to appellant to abide event, 'unless the plaintiff stipulates, within 20 days, to reduce the verdict to $500, in which case judgment and order affirmed, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         805,852
<SECURITIES>                                 1,581,822
<RECEIVABLES>                                  797,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,263,497
<PP&E>                                          40,055
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,303,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        84,791
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,177,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,303,552
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,224
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               114,503
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         416,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,897
<PP&E>                                       8,713,796
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,686,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,511,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,196
<BONDS>                                      6,384,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,027,068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,511,788
<SALES>                                        326,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,442
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,602
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,972)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (85,972)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (85,972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.68)
        

</TABLE>