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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40241

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO RIOS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:10-CR-113-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Alberto Rios has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Rios has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 12-40241 Document: 00512097967 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
No. 12-40241

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40241 Document: 00512097967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2013
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilbur Hildreth, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 507]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered February 28, 2011, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and disorderly conduct, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent with *People v Mintz*(20 NY2d 770 [1967]).

The defendant died during the pendency of this appeal and, thus, the action has abated *(see People v Mintz,*20 NY2d 770 [1967]; *People v Jenkins,*167 AD2d 422 [1990]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 393 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 393

         Designating March 11, 2012, as ``World Plumbing Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2012

Mr. Bennet (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Merkley, and Mr. 
  Hatch) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Designating March 11, 2012, as ``World Plumbing Day''.

Whereas the industry of plumbing plays an important role in safeguarding the 
        public health of the people of the United States and the world;
Whereas 884,000,000 people around the world do not have access to safe drinking 
        water;
Whereas 2,600,000,000 people around the world live without adequate sanitation 
        facilities;
Whereas the lack of sanitation is the largest cause of infection in the world;
Whereas in the developing world, 24,000 children under the age of 5 die every 
        day from preventable causes, such as diarrhea contracted from unclean 
        water;
Whereas safe and efficient plumbing helps save money and reduces future water 
        supply costs and infrastructure costs;
Whereas the installation of modern plumbing systems must be accomplished in a 
        specific, safe manner by trained professionals in order to prevent 
        widespread disease, which can be crippling and deadly to the community;
Whereas the people of the United States rely on plumbing professionals to 
        maintain, repair, and rebuild the aging water infrastructure of the 
        United States;
Whereas Congress and plumbing professionals across the United States and the 
        world are committed to safeguarding public health; and
Whereas the founding organization of World Plumbing Day, the World Plumbing 
        Council, is currently being chaired by GP Russ Chaney, a United States 
        citizen: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates March 11, 2012, as ``World 
Plumbing Day''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Peter Wirth, Appellant, v Royal Coach Lines, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), entered May 2, 1984, which denied his motion to strike defendants’ second affirmative defense that the action is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law, without prejudice to renewal.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The record fails to provide an adequate basis from which it can be determined whether the plaintiff was engaged in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. A more extensive development of the facts is necessary, and thus the plaintiff’s motion was properly denied *(Cherney v Blair Chevrolet,*18 AD2d 915; *Wolfson v Gershunoff,*277 App Div 1149). If it is unable to conclusively resolve this issue after discovery and upon renewal of the motion, the court may order an immediate trial of this issue pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c). Mollen, P. J., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### William Di Geloromo, Appellant, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), dated August 1, 1984, which denied his motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The instant application for leave to file a late notice of claim was made after the expiration of the one-year and 30-day Statute of Limitations set forth in Public Authorities Law § 1276 (2) *(see, Andersen v Long Is. R. R.,*88 AD2d 328, *affd*59 NY2d 657). While a formal notice of claim is no longer required before suing a subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, plaintiff must still serve a demand and wait 30 days before serving a complaint *(see,*Public Authorities Law § 1276 [6]; *Andersen v Long Is. R. R., supra).*The court may only grant permission to file a late notice of claim or demand if the motion is made within the statutory period *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50 [e] [5]; *Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist.,*51 NY2d 256). Therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion to file a late notice of claim unless the Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority (hereinafter MSBA) is equitably estopped from raising the Statute of Limitations.

Plaintiff argues that the MSBA should be estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations because of the culpable conduct of its employee in allegedly leaving the scene of an accident. However, equitable estoppel will be applied against governmental agencies only in exceptional cases *(Matter of*
      *692
      *1555 Boston Rd. Corp. v Finance Administrator of City of N. Y.,*61 AD2d 187). Plaintiff fails to show that this is such a case. Insufficient probative evidence has been adduced to link the MSBA to the accident and, thus, it has not been demonstrated that the MSBA engaged in conduct of such a nature as to give rise to an estoppel. Therefore, the court properly held that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations and that a late notice of claim should not be served.

Plaintiff challenges on equal protection grounds the validity of the Statute of Limitations for tort claims brought against the MTA and its subsidiaries. However, it is well-settled law in this State that "limitations imposed on actions as a condition of the State’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity are matters of legislative discretion not amenable to an equal protection challenge” *(Umansky v New York Metropolitan Tr. Auth.,*111 AD2d 918, 919; *Matter of Brown v Board of Trustees,*303 NY 484; *Pausley v Chaloner,*54 AD2d 131, *appeal dismissed*41 NY2d 900, *lv denied*41 NY2d 805). Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.
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  on Form  10-Q of  Synovics
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the for the quarterly  period ended
April 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Ronald Howard Lane,  Principal  Executive  Officer,  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) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)      The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the consolidated financial condition of the Company
         as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the
         Company for the periods presented.

Dated: June 21, 2006


By: /s/ Ronald Howard Lane
    ------------------------------
    Ronald Howard Lane
    Chief Executive Officer




This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Synovics  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  and will be retained by Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 249 

Honoring the achievements of E. Thom Rumberger. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the achievements of E. Thom Rumberger. 

Whereas E. Thom Rumberger served in the United States 

Marine Corps; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger earned a bachelor’s degree, with 

honors, and a J.D. from the University of Florida; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger is a founding partner of the law 

firm Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, which has represented 

multinational corporations such as American Airlines, 

Inc., Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Toyota Motor Corporation; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger has been listed in Florida Super 

Lawyers every year from 2007 to 2010; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was appointed Circuit Judge in 

the 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida in 1969; 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 249 IS 

Whereas Thom Rumberger has committed himself to numerous acts of public service, including serving on the Federal Judicial Advisory Commission of Florida and the 

Board of Supervisors of the Spaceport Florida Authority; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger has been one of the most steadfast champions of the Everglades in Florida; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger has served as lead counsel for the 

Everglades Foundation since 1999; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in the passage 

of two amendments to the Florida Constitution and of 

section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (Public Law 106–541; 114 Stat. 2680), known as 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in obtaining 

several billion dollars in funding for Everglades restoration; and 

Whereas Thom Rumberger served on the Florida Governor’s 

2001 Select Task Force on Elections and the 2002 Select 

Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and was Chairman of the Legislature’s Study 

Committee on Public Records in 2002: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes and honors the professional suc3 cess of E. Thom Rumberger; and 

4 (2) recognizes and honors the lifelong dedica5 tion of Thom Rumberger to the protection of the 

6 Florida Everglades. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Floyd Charles, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered October 18, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence of an indeterminate term of 15 years to life imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed.

The eyewitness in question knew the defendant; therefore, the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress a station house showup identification of defendant was not error *(People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543). In any event, identification was not an issue in this case, inasmuch as defendant admitted his presence at the crime scene.

By failing to object to the court’s failure to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree prior to deliberations, defendant waived his objection and, therefore, it is not properly preserved for review (CPL 300.50 [1]; *406
      *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Had objection been made, there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the jury could have found defendant had committed reckless manslaughter (CPL 300.50 [1]; *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427; *People v Smith,*87 AD2d 640). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
----

(2004/C 65 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1176/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject:   Community funding for Spain

Can the Commission forward, to the author of this question, a full list of all hydrological infrastructure schemes for which funding has been requested by the Spanish central government under the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund (for 2000-2006), in the context of major projects, whether planned on an individual basis or included in measures under the operative programmes?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

As established in Article 14.3: ‘Information and publicity’ of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1), amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 (2) and by Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 (3), the Commission publishes yearly in the Official Journal of the European Union the main points of Decisions granting financial assistance under the above mentioned Regulation.

The information is classified by country and by field of assistance. The fields dealing with ‘water supply and water quality’ and with ‘waste-water disposal and treatment’ include the information regarding the hydrological infrastructure schemes financed by the Cohesion Fund.

The information for Spain is published in the following Official Journals of the European Union:

The information corresponding to the year 2002, already sent for publication, is enclosed in the Annex I of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Projects for which financing has been requested but which are still under consideration or have been approved in 2003 are set out in Annex II of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Regarding projects financed by the European Regional Development Fund under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (4), the Member State is only obliged to communicate to the Commission its requests for the co-financing of major projects. Information on such projects is enclosed in Annex III of this reply, which is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

----

(1)OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.

(2)OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(3)OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(4)OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

----
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 August 3, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-15125

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-60014-CR-KAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

WILLIE JAMES COLLINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 3, 2005)

Before BLACK, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Willie James Collins pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud
2

the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and one count of making a false,

fictitious, or fraudulent claim against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 287. He challenges his 37-month sentence on the grounds that the district court

violated United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by

enhancing his sentence based on facts that were neither proven to a jury nor

admitted by him. He also contends that the district court committed a Booker

statutory error by sentencing him under a mandatory guidelines regime.

The government concedes that the district court committed a Booker

statutory error. Because Collins gave a timely objection before the district court,

we review the error to determine whether it was harmless. See United States v.

Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005). “A non-constitutional error is

harmless if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, a court determines that the

error did not affect the sentence, or had but very slight effect. If one can say with

fair assurance that the sentence was not substantially swayed by the error, the

sentence is due to be affirmed even though there was error.” Id. (marks and

quotations omitted). The government has not met its burden under this standard.

The only evidence the government points to in arguing that the Booker

statutory error was harmless is the fact that Collins was sentenced to the top of the

30 to 37 month sentencing-range produced by the guidelines. That evidence alone
 Because we find resentencing necessary due to the Booker statutory error, we need not 1

address Collins’ arguments regarding any alleged Booker constitutional error.

3

is not enough to provide a “fair assurance that the sentence was not substantially

swayed by the error,” id. (marks and quotations omitted). Cf. United States v.

Gallegos-Aguero, 409 F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding the Booker

statutory error harmless in that case where the district court sentenced the

defendant to the top of the sentencing range and explicitly “considered sentencing

[the defendant] to 20 years, the maximum allowable under the statute of

conviction”). As a result, the government has failed to establish that the Booker

statutory error was harmless. 

1

Collins’ sentenced is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for

resentencing.
#### In the Matter of James Keyes, Petitioner, v Trans Con Line, Inc., Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated December 23,1983, which determined that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.

Proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Petitioner failed to seek judicial review within 60 days of the effective date of Laws of 1984 (ch 83) as required. Consequently, the petition must be dismissed *(Alecsandrescu v Board of Educ.,*63 AD2d 955). Were we to have considered this proceeding on its merits, we would have dismissed it because petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation based upon substantial evidence. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>

This Schedule Contains Summary  Information Extracted From The Condensed
Consolidated  Balance Sheet And The Condensed Consolidated Statements Of
Income For The  Twelve Months Ended March 31,  199 8 And March 31, 1997,
And  Is  Qualified  In  Its  Entirety  By  Reference  To  Such Financial
Statements.


       
<S>                          <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              MAR-31-1998          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1998          MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                             303,960              108,148
<SECURITIES>                             0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   32,424,411           25,923,091
<ALLOWANCES>                     6,137,140            4,429,231
<INVENTORY>                              0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0                    0
<PP&E>                             616,283              520,920
<DEPRECIATION>                     392,797              338,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  34,172,885           27,020,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           27,197,058           20,985,464
<BONDS>                                  0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0                    0
<COMMON>                         3,740,069            3,713,210
<OTHER-SE>                       3,235,758            2,322,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    34,172,885           27,020,742
<SALES>                            443,392              459,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 7,937,022            6,209,129
<CGS>                              105,924               98,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,321,715            2,640,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    82,758               85,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   848,641              438,510
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               2,080,337            1,656,402 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  1,497,647            1,289,530
<INCOME-TAX>                       583,957              497,276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                913,690              792,254
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                    0
<CHANGES>                                0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                       913,690              792,254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .39                  .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .39                  .36

        <FN>

<F1> RECEIVABLES ARE  PRESENTED  NET  OF  UNEARNED  FINANCE  CHARGES,
NON-REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.

<F2> RECEIVABLES ARE  PRESENTED  AS  TOTAL  RESERVES ,  COMPRISED   OF
NON-REFUNDABLE DEALER RESERVE AND ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS.

        



</TABLE>