alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50895 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ORLANDO REYES-PACHON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-13-ALL-KC

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Orlando Reyes-Pachon (Reyes) appeals his conviction and sentence following his plea of guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported. Citing United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), he argues that the district court erred in increasing his criminal history, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e), based on the conclusion that at the time of his illegal reentry, he had been released from custody for less than two years. Reyes also argues that the district court committedNo. 04-50895 -2-

“ Fanfan error” when it sentenced him pursuant to a mandatory guideline system. Because we conclude that the district court committed “ Fanfan error” when it sentenced Reyes pursuant to a mandatory guideline system, see United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.) cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005), we decline to address Reyes’s argument that the application of § 4A1.1(e) amounted to Booker error. See United States v. Apkan , 407 F.3d 360, 377 n.62 (5th Cir. 2005). This court reviews a preserved Fanfan challenge for harmless

error. United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government has not met its burden of demonstrating that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent its mandatory application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Pineiro , 410 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we remand the case for the district court to decide whether resentencing will be appropriate. Reyes’s constitutional challenge to the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Reyes contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.No. 04-50895 -3- See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Reyes properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED BUT REMANDED FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO RESENTENCE.
H. R. 2250 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–53) is 

amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and 

inserting ‘‘December 16, 2015’’. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# C_2021147EN.01000201.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10006 — Covestro/Koninklijke DSM (Resins & Functional Materials Business and Other Assets))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 147/02)

On 5 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10006. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10006. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40086 Summary Calendar

MARCUS DEON JOHNSON ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

GAGE L. GUINN ,
Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16

- CV

- 1169

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marcus Deon Johnson, Texas prisoner # 1719334, appeals the district court’s order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw and denying Johnson’s motion to appoint substitute counsel in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “This [c]ourt must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own

mo tion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The denial of a motion for appointment of counsel in a § 1983 case is not

* 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 June 25, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40086 Document: 00515465818 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2020No. 18

- 40086

2 immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Williams v. Catoe , 946 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (overruling Robbins v. Maggio , 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985))

. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 18-40086 Document: 00515465818 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2020
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130684 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130684 COA: 267383 Wayne CC: 04-009554-01 RONALD TYREE RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0619 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 26, 2006

Clerk
#### WELDON et al., Appellants, v. DE LISLE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June, 1896.)

Motion denied.

PER CURIAM.

This case was submitted on the 14th of March, 1896. Appellant now moves for a reargument, and one of the reasons urged is that the case was submitted instead of being argued orally. Upon an examination of all the grounds urged for a reargument, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not made a case entitling him to a reargument according to well-established rules applicable to motions for reargument. Mount v. Mitchell, 32 N. Y. 702; Marine Nat. Bank v. National City Bank, 59 N. Y. 67; Bank v. Hunsiker, 72 N. Y. 252; Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 N. Y. 651, 27 N. E. 382. In the course of the examination of the case upon the merits, the court had occasion to refer to Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531, and Clapp v. Town of Ellington, 87 Hun, 542, 34 N. Y. Supp. 283, and it reached the conclusion that the question involved and passed upon by the referee was one of fact. Vega v. French, 79 Hun, 364, 29 N. Y. Supp. 450; Town of Corning v. Head, 86 Hun, 14, 33 N. Y. Supp. 360; Devlin v. Bank, 125 N. Y. 756, 26 *1135N. E. 744. Nothing is found in the motion papers submitted for reargument which is sufficient to induce the 'court to grant the motion.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT JOHNNIE F. HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1254 December 13, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. SLEET, C.J., and KELLY and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                        2457 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                26983 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                  32872 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             65807 
<PP&E>                                       25838 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               98987 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        37965 
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 98987 
<SALES>                                     182607 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            182607 
<CGS>                                       140456 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               140456 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             18219 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             380 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              23552 
<INCOME-TAX>                                  9198 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          14354 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 14354 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 1.56 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.54 
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ruben Alvira, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered on October 14, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
vnue_ex104.htm

EXHIBIT 10.4
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	10
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	11
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	12
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	13
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	14
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	15
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	16
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	17
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	18
#### Seeber *v.*American Mining & Milling Co.

(Supreme *Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Master and Servant—Compensation.

Plaintiff asked $5 per day to work for defendant, and was told that the company could not pay that “now, ” but would give $75 per month, “and after 3 or 4 months-*852then the company could pay wages. ” Plaintiff worked on that basis about a year, when his salary was raised to $100 a month which he accepted without objection. *Held,*that defendant was not liable to pay a greater sum.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Horatio G. Seeber against the American' Mining & Milling Company, to recover compensation for services rendered defendant on an alleged contract for $150 a month. A nonsuit was ordered, the exceptions to be heard in the first instance at general term.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Thos. J. Bitch, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *Andrew Butcher,*for defendant.

Barnard, P. J.

The facts proven did not entitle the plaintiff to sustain a verdict based on the evidence, and therefore the case was properly dismissed. The plaintiff is a carpenter; the defendant, a domestic corporation who was about to start a business in breaking stones, and mining and selling sand, at Port Jefferson. The vice-president of the company was in negotiation with the plaintiff to go to Port Jefferson, and act for the company. The plaintiff and this officer of the defendant went there to look at the ground, and finally the question was reached, what would the plaintiff go there for? The plaintiff asked $5 per day. He was told that the company could not pay that now, but would give $75 per month, and some stock of the company, “and after three or four months then the company could pay wages.” The plaintiff went on that basis. There was ,no mention of any amount of stock of the company which was to be given in addition to the $75 per month. Ho stock was ever given, and this action has no reference to a default in that particular. There was no binding agreement beyond the $75 per month. The words of the contract do not import any. There was no time when by force of the agreement a new rate of compensation would be due under it. The plaintiff worked under it for about a year, when his rate of compensation was raised to $100 a month. An application for an advance was made by plaintiff at the end of a little over five months, and none was made. There was no definite time as to the duration of the contract, and none beyond the $75 per month, subsequently raised to $100, as to the compensation, which the plaintiff was to receive thereunder. Either party could terminate the contract at pleasure. When the plaintiff took his wages under it, there remained no liability upon defendant’s part to pay a greater sum than was paid to the plaintiff.' The action was properly dismissed, and the exception should be overruled, and the defendant have judgment upon the ruling at the circuit, with the costs of this appeal.
EXHIBIT 32.1



PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three-months ended December 31, 2005
(the Report), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



February 9, 2005



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive Officer Pericom Semiconductor
Corporation
# C_2021292EN.01000401.xml

| 22.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10284 — KPS/Crown European Tinplate)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 292/03)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | KPS Capital Partners, LP (‘KPS’, USA); |
| --- | --- |

—

KPS Capital Partners, LP (‘KPS’, USA);

| — | Food, Aerosol and Promotional Packaging business in Europe, Middle East and Africa (‘Crown European Tinplate’), controlled by Crown Holdings, Inc. (USA). |
| --- | --- |

—

Food, Aerosol and Promotional Packaging business in Europe, Middle East and Africa (‘Crown European Tinplate’), controlled by Crown Holdings, Inc. (USA).

KPS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Crown European Tinplate. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for KPS: equity investment fund active across a diverse array of industries, including basic materials, branded consumer, healthcare and luxury products, automotive parts, capital equipment and general manufacturing. KPS recently acquired Hydro Rolling, a company active in the production and supply of aluminium flat rolled products, including aluminium sheet for food cans, |
| --- | --- |

—

for KPS: equity investment fund active across a diverse array of industries, including basic materials, branded consumer, healthcare and luxury products, automotive parts, capital equipment and general manufacturing. KPS recently acquired Hydro Rolling, a company active in the production and supply of aluminium flat rolled products, including aluminium sheet for food cans,

| — | for Crown European Tinplate: active in the design, manufacture and sale of packaging products for consumer goods including the following: aerosol cans and ends; food cans and ends; metal closures; and promotional packaging. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Crown European Tinplate: active in the design, manufacture and sale of packaging products for consumer goods including the following: aerosol cans and ends; food cans and ends; metal closures; and promotional packaging.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10284 — KPS/Crown European Tinplate

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Fruit and Tree Nut Research: Byron, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Byron, Georgia Fruit and Tree Nut Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Collaborations The Fruit and Tree Nut Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov