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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

September 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 02-51411

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IRMA VERONICA SALVATIERRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(EP-02-CR-933-1)

_________________________________________________________________

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Irma Veronica Salvatierra appeals her convictions for:

conspiracy to import, and importation of, 100 kilograms or more of

marijuana; and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and

possession with intent to distribute, 100 kilograms or more of

marijuana. She contends: (1) her conviction should be reversed

because the prosecutor made an improper remark during closing
2

argument (concerning jury’s doing something about drug use in

community); and (2) her sentence should be vacated because the

district court erred by not granting her a two-level reduction in

her total offense level due to her minor role in the offense.

The claimed prosecutorial misconduct is reviewed under a twostep process by which we determine: (1) whether the comment was

improper; and (2) whether it prejudiced Salvatierra’s substantive

rights. See, e.g., United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 574

(1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1119 (2000). Assuming arguendo that

the comment was improper, there was ample evidence for the jury to

convict Salvatierra in the absence of the prosecutor’s comment;

therefore, she has not demonstrated that it prejudiced her

substantial rights. See United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203,

210-11 (5th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d

600, 606 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 892 (1994).

A district court’s determination that a defendant played more

than a “minor” role for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 is reviewed

only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d 593,

598 (5th Cir. 2001). Salvatierra’s sentence was based on the

conduct in which she was directly involved, namely the

transportation of drugs across the border. Because her role in the

offense was co-extensive with the conduct for which she was held

accountable, the district court did not clearly err in denying the

reduction. Id. at 598-99.
3

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6371

FEDERICO J. HEADLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

D. A. BRAXTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-1794-AM)

Submitted: September 8, 2000 Decided: September 15, 2000

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Federico J. Headley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

February 16, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 22, 2000. Pursuant to

Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is

the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we

take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Federico J. Headley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Headley v. Braxton, No. CA-99-

1794-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2000).* 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
#### ZEGGIO et al. v. EOBINSON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Helen E. Zeggio and others against Duryea E. Eobinson and others. L. L. Kellogg, for appellants. P. Merrill and J. L. Bishop, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 quarterly report of Town Sports International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
Giardina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:  (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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Robert GiardinaTown Sports International, Inc.
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2004
#### PEOPLE v. MAHONEY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People .of the State of New York against William Mahoney and others. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, unless appellants comply with terms stated in order. Order filed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40104 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
CRISTOBAL VIELMA

- ESQUIVEL , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1559

- 1

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cristobal Vielma

- Esquivel (Vielma) pleaded guilty of being found in the United States after previous deportation . In this appeal, Vielma contends th at the district court reversibly erred by imposing a 16

- level “drug trafficking offense” enhancement, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (i), because he was convicted in 1998 of use of a communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking crime in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Citing Descamps v. United

* 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 September 22, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40104 Document: 00513202785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/22/2015No. 15

- 40104

2 States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), he asserts that § 843(b) is an indivisible statut e and, thus, the modified categorical approach of Shepard v. United States , 544 U.S. 13, 16 (2005), d oes not apply. Because the statute may be violated in ways that do not constitute a generic “drug trafficking offense,” he argues, a prior
conviction unde r § 843(b) may never qualify as a drug trafficking offense for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i).
A lthough Vielma objected to the 16

- level enhancement in the district court, he did so on other grounds. Thus, our review of V ielma’s arguments are for plain error. See United States v. Henao

- Melo , 591 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2009). To be plain, an “‘error must be clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable debate.’” United States v. Ellis , 564 F.3d 370, 377

- 78 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Puckett v. Un ited States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) ). Vielma’s argument relies only on an extension of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Descamps . Because it asserts a novel legal theory, the district court did not commit a clear or obvious error in failing to recognize it. See United States v.
Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 671 (5th Cir. 2009) (concluding that any error was not plain where argument was no vel and not supported by circuit precedent). The judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-40104 Document: 00513202785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/22/2015
*The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2519

___________

Robert Becker; Virgil Borgmeyer; *

Tyrone Caley; Allen Dahlstrom; *

Thomas H. Patterson; Joseph Roberts; *

Donald Stephens, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellants, * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

ABB Power T & D Company, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2001

Filed: April 18, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and VIETOR,* District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After they were terminated in a reduction in force (RIF), seven former employees

of ABB Power T & D Company brought this lawsuit alleging the RIF was a pretext for
**The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

age discrimination. The district court** granted summary judgment to ABB Power,

concluding the RIF was a bona fide exercise of business judgment and the former

employees failed individually to show they were discriminated against because of their

age. The employees challenge the summary judgment decision on appeal, asserting the

district court failed to consider certain evidence, to discount other evidence, to draw

all reasonable inferences in their favor, and to apply the law correctly. We reject these

assertions. Having carefully reviewed the evidence about each former employee and

assuming that each former employee established a prima facie case, we agree with the

district court's analysis that no reasonable jury could conclude ABB Power's stated

reasons for the employees' layoffs were a pretext for age discrimination. See Reeves

v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148-49 (2000). The former

employees argue the district court failed to apply Reeves, which the Supreme Court

decided six days after the district court's ruling. Although the district court recited

Eighth Circuit law displaced by Reeves, the district court's decision is in keeping with

the Reeves decision. We thus conclude the district court correctly granted summary

judgment, and affirm without extended discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 99.2

                        Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of AMCORE Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Kenneth E. Edge, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

     (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/ Kenneth E. Edge
-----------------------------
Kenneth E. Edge
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002



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
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.
OFFICE OF THE ARORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Eon. iho. .i, 001, X. D. state Health ofrioer Austin * ?SxaS

3ear 3lr: --~_ apinion Iio. M&Z72 ’ .:a~---, tiuthority oP.~theAttorhey General tii\rrg$resent 

## I’ .,ta Xate Department 

## or

ijealth In suit for recovery or fees due under provisions

## or2tiole ’ &76-a, ~ernon*s motated -\ ,.' \ Civil Statutes. /
YOU- letter of August 17, '194~2, **requests** the opinion 0r this 

## dk3piiHXqAt as tQ WBether it is the duty 

## orthe attorney c.3enera.l.

to eaoh QtSele,,dr bedding mnufaotured, snd that a revenue atamp,shal'i, bri"&tyohedto suahlabel. Themnufacturer, deacribed byyoq had refusedto attaoh the label or the revenue stamp to artiDf'es ol bedding nanufaotured by hkn.

:hilo the statute provides a oriminsl penalty for violation of its provisibns, weare of the opinion that upon the mnufacture or th,e artiole of bedding, the ;zunuf,?oturer beames liable to the State for the amouut sl the revenue stamp required to be attached thereto. 3uch liability is a debt to the state, andir;aybe anforoed by suit. :<owardV.IIon. Sao. X. Cox, LD., Tage 2

baagoror liouston, 59 Tex. 76; Cave v. cityor ::ouston, Tex. 619; State V. L~illlianm, dTex. 354; Yexae ?anking Iniuranoe CO.v. state, k2Tex. 636. 65 &
Seation 22, A%.ole 4

## or the Sonstitution, after proaoribing oertain, specifio duties of tCe .+ttorney General, provides thathe ahall *perform suoh okher duties as nay be presoribed by law.**

lrtiole j&l&, X.C.Y. reads, in >art, 3s fz~llo-mr WI all matters :uherein the State aoard of l’fealth shall invoke the aid oi' the oo*tita, the clotion shall run in ihe naftieol %e Aate 

## orTexas. TheAttorney Generai shall assign a special a~asiatant to attend to ull legal natters of the board. Uponuemod of the board, the Attomey General shall fur;iish the neaeesary assistanoe to the board to attend to allits legal requirernenta.

. . .I* Seotion 5, Artiole 4476-a. charges the Sate Board of IIealth

with the enforoement gi" the .;ct. \a am, thsrerore, or the opinion that it ia the duty of the Attorney General to represent the State, in a suitbroughtat the instanceof the stateSoard of Ysalth for the oolleotion of delinquent ices knposed by Article 476-a, V.A.G.3.

Truatlng that wshave fully anmered your tiquiry, we are
# Journal officiel C 93I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l’Union européenne | C 093I |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 65e année28 février 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l’Union européenne

C 093I

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

65e année28 février 2022

---

| Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informations |
| | INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE |
| | Commission européenne |
| 2022/C 93 I/01 | Avis aux importateurs — Importations dans l’Union de marchandises originaires des zones des oblasts ukrainiens de Donetsk et de Louhansk non contrôlées par le gouvernement | 1 |

Sommaire

page

IV   Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

2022/C 93 I/01

Avis aux importateurs — Importations dans l’Union de marchandises originaires des zones des oblasts ukrainiens de Donetsk et de Louhansk non contrôlées par le gouvernement

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

IV Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

| 28.2.2022 | FR | Journal officiel de l’Union européenne | CI 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

FR

Journal officiel de l’Union européenne

CI 93/1

---

Avis aux importateurs

Importations dans l’Union de marchandises originaires des zones des oblasts ukrainiens de Donetsk et de Louhansk non contrôlées par le gouvernement

(2022/C 93 I/01)

Le règlement (UE) 2022/263 du Conseil du 23 février 2022 concernant des mesures restrictives en réaction à la reconnaissance des zones des oblasts ukrainiens de Donetsk et de Louhansk non contrôlées par le gouvernement et à l’ordre donné aux forces armées russes d’entrer dans ces zones (1) a instauré une interdiction d’importer dans l’Union européenne des marchandises originaires desdites zones à partir du jour suivant celui de sa publication.

Il est conseillé aux importateurs de l’Union de vérifier attentivement l’origine réelle des marchandises qu’ils déclarent, étant donné qu’il existe des risques que des marchandises soumises à l’interdiction prévue par le règlement susmentionné soient importées dans l’Union en provenance de pays voisins de l’Ukraine, en particulier la Russie et la Biélorussie. Tel peut notamment être le cas pour les produits charbonniers relevant de la position NC 2701 et les produits sidérurgiques relevant des positions NC 7201 à 7207 et des positions NC 7304, 7305 et 7306. Compte tenu de ce risque de contournement, la mise en libre pratique de ces produits importés de Russie et de Biélorussie peut être subordonnée à la fourniture aux autorités douanières de preuves concluantes que ces marchandises ne font pas l’objet de l’interdiction d’importation de marchandises originaires des zones des oblasts ukrainiens de Donetsk et de Louhansk non contrôlées par le gouvernement.

---

(1)  JO L 42 I du 23.2.2022, p. 77.

---
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER

Statement

Solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Sonic Foundry, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 10, 2006



|       |  |                         
|------ |  | ------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Rimas P. Buinevicius
|By:    |  | Rimas P. Buinevicius    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Kenneth A. Minor    
|By:    |  | Kenneth A. Minor        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer 



22
#### Ronald Wotherspoon, Respondent, v Preferred Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

— Levine, J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Mercure, J.), entered January 9, 1985 in Schenectady County, which granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the second affirmative defense contained in the answer and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in the decision at Special Term, we agree that (1) an issue of fact was presented on whether plaintiff’s notification of the incident of November 21, 1982 was given "as soon as practicable”, as required under defendant’s liability policy issued to plaintiff; and (2) that said policy provided plaintiff with coverage for the claim against him based upon his negligent infliction of personal injuries upon the other person allegedly involved in that incident. We are equally unpersuaded by defendant’s further contention that the absence of written notice, as required under the insurance policy, required dismissal of the complaint as a matter of law. The record contains a letter from defendant acknowledging having received a report on November 21, 1983 of the incident. Additionally, plaintiff’s reply affidavit sets forth facts from which it is inferable that insurance agent Richard Whalen, to whom written notice was given on Novem*827her 8, 1983, was the agent of defendant *(see,*Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [3]). Therefore, a question of fact was also presented as to plaintiffs compliance with the timely written notice requirement of the policy defendant issued to him *(Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co.,*47 NY2d 12, 20-21; *see also, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman,*56 NY2d 799; *Nowicki v Insuramerica,*103 AD2d 1013).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6283

TIMOTHY E. HATCHETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, M.H.C.--Annex;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-644-DKC)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy E. Hatchett, Appellant Pro Se. David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 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.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). 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 appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Hatchett v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-644-DKC (D. Md. Jan. 16,

1998). 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