alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Victor Manuel HINOJOSA-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40952

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 5, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel Hinojosa-Moreno has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hinojosa-Moreno 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 excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allan Williams, Also Known as Allen Hankins, Also Known as Allen Williams, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered on March 19, 1986, 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., Sandler, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5802 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5802

To repeal a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
 providing for funds to a health care facility and rescind funds made 
                     available under such section.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2010

  Mr. Upton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
 providing for funds to a health care facility and rescind funds made 
                     available under such section.

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

SECTION 1. RESCISSION AND REPEAL OF PPACA PROVISION PROVIDING FUNDS TO 
              A CERTAIN HEALTH CARE FACILITY.

    Section 10502 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148) is repealed. Any unobligated balances available on 
the date of the enactment of this Act of funds appropriated to the 
Department of Health and Human Services under such section are 
rescinded and all amounts made available under such section before such 
date shall be returned to the Treasury.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Demetrius MCCULLOUGH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-30754

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 17, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Demetrius McCullough appeals the sentence imposed following jury convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon, and possession of a prohibited object, in a federal prison. He was sentenced, based upon his being a career offender, to, *inter alia,*100 months’ imprisonment.

For the first time on appeal, McCullough contends the district court erred by assessing a two-level enhancement under advisory Sentencing Guideline § 2A2.2(b)(l) (assess two-level enhanee*479ment if assault “involved more than minimal planning”). As he concedes, because he did not preserve this issue in district court, review is only for plain error. *E.g., United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.2009). For reversible plain error, there must be a clear or obvious error (plain error) that affected McCullough’s substantial rights; even then, we retain discretion to correct the error and, generally, will do so only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. *E.g., United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 358-59 (5th Cir.2005).

McCullough maintains: there was a plain error because the undisputed facts show that the offense did not involve “more than minimal planning”; and, the error affected his substantial rights because, without the enhancement, his advisory sentencing range would have been 84-106 months, instead of the 100-120 months range utilized by the court.

For starters, whether McCullough engaged in “more than minimal planning” is a factual determination. *See, e.g., United States v. Floyd,*343 F.3d 363, 371 (5th Cir.2003). Under our court’s well-established precedent, “[qjuestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error”. *United States v. Vital,*68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In any event, the more-than-minimal-planning enhancement did not affect McCullough’s sentence because he was sentenced as a career offender, which carried a higher offense level than that calculated using the enhancement. Accordingly, McCullough has not shown the enhancement affected his substantial rights. *See, e.g., United States v. Guevara,*408 F.3d 252, 263 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2376 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to post on the public Web site of the 

Department of Defense the cost to each American taxpayer of each 

of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2015 

Mr. LEWIS (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. CLARKE

of New York, and Ms. NORTON) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to post on the public 

Web site of the Department of Defense the cost to each 

American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, 

Iraq, and Syria. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cost of War Act of 

5 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COST OF WARS. 

7 The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 

8 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall post on the pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:12 May 22, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2376.IH H2376

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2376 IH

1 lic Web site of the Department of Defense the cost to each 

2 American taxpayer of each of the wars in Afghanistan, 

3 Iraq, and Syria. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA E. RODAS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71524

Agency No. A073-969-455

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 29, 2012** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Maria E. Rodas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

APR 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71524

de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008),

except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the

governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th

Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition

for review and remand.

Rodas claims she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on

membership in a particular social group of women in Guatemala who are the

victims of domestic violence. The IJ rejected Rodas’ social group before the

Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 2008)

(lifting stay and remanding petitioner’s claims based on domestic violence for

further proceedings), and the BIA did not address Matter of R-A- in its decision. In

light of the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A-, and in light of our

intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010)

(remanding for the agency to determine “whether women in Guatemala constitute a

particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of

persecution” on account of her membership in a protected group), we grant Rodas’

petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
3 09-71524

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
# How do I Get a New Online Access Code?

Contact Us

If you lost your Online Access Code or it has expired, you can request a new one using this link: my.uscis.gov/account/v1/needhelp.

After filling out a short form you will see a drop-down menu of technical support options. Please select “**I need help with getting a new online access code.**” Then click “**Send Message.**”

Our Technical Help Desk will email you with the new online access code, usually within 10 business days.

**Why Did My Paper Case Not Link to My Account?**

Applicants sometimes ask why their paper case did not link to their online account. This usually happens if you did not include your online account number on the paper form you submitted. This causes our case management system to create a new account for that case. You would need to use a new email address and create a new account to access that case online. Unfortunately, we cannot merge cases in different online accounts to one account.

**PLEASE NOTE**: It is possible that someone else used your Online Access Code. Sometimes a legal representative or family member may use your Online Access Code to link a case. Please check with your legal representative or family member to see if they used your code.

10/06/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
##### 



Exhibit 23.2




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-102210, 333-115601, and 333-121551) on
Form S-8 of First Acceptance Corporation of our report
dated September 9, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheet of First Acceptance Corporation and subsidiaries
as of June 30, 2005, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
June 30, 2005, which report appears in the June 30,
2006 annual report on Form 10-K of First Acceptance
Corporation.



| |                     
| | --------------------
| | (KPMG LLP SIGNATURE)
|
| | KPMG LLP            

Dallas, Texas
#### Strickland v. Home Foreign Investment & Agency Co., Limited, *et al.*

Appeal from Dale Chancery Court.

Heard before the 1-Ion. T. M. Espy, Special Chancellor.

H. L. Martin, for appellant.

Borders & Carmici-iael and W. R. Nelson, for appellees.

Opinion by

Tyson, J.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant against the appellee, to cancel a foreclosure sale under a power contained in a mortgage, and to cancel said mortgage as a cloud upon the complainant’s title. The facts of the case are substantially the same, with the exception of the names of the parties litigant, as those stated in the opinion of the court in the case of *Land Mortgage Investment Agency Co. v.*Preston, 119 Ala. 290.

On the final submission of the cause, on the pleadings and proof, the chancellor decreed that the complainant was not entitled to the relief prayed for, but that the defendants, who had filed a cross-bill, were entitled to the relief prayed for therein.

On this appeal, upon the authority of *Land Mortgage Invest. Agency Co. v.*Preston, *supra,*the decree of the chancellor is reversed and a decree here rendered denying the relief prayed for by the cross complainant, and ordering the cross-bill dismissed, and granting the relief prayed for by the complainant in the original bill.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1

The Board of Directors
Petsec Energy Ltd

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-6128) of Petsec Energy Ltd of our report dated May 31, 2005,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Petsec Energy Ltd and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2004 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of
the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2004 which report appears
in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 20-F of Petsec Energy Ltd.

KPMG

Sydney, Australia
June 28, 2005
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

The undersigned, Si Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. Information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 15th day of April 2008.

| | /s/ Si  Chen                 
| | -----------------------------
| | Si Chen                      
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
CAUSE NO. 69510

EUGENE ELDRIDGE et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § vs. § § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

§

§ BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS § 149 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT BRAZORIA COUNTY’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

1. Defendant, Brazoria County, desires to appea l from the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction, signed on June 10, 2015. (See Exhibit A)

2. Defendant, Brazoria County, appeals to either the First or the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.

3. This is an accelerated appeal as it is an appeal from an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction made by Brazoria County, a governmental unit.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Raethella Jones Raethella Jones Assistant District Attorney 111 E. Locust, Suite 408A Angleton, Texas 77515 (979) 864-1232 (979) 849-8914 fax rjones@brazoria-county.com Bar Card No. 75007981 Filed for Record 6/16/2015 10:18:38 AM Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk Brazoria County, Texas 69510 Kim Mire, DeputyCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this notice of appeal was served on all counsel of record by: X , regular mail, X certified mail, X , fax, X electronic mail or personal delivery on June 16, 2015.

/s/ Raethella Jones Raethella Jones
# FY 2009 Grant Recipients

#### Archived Content

The information on this page is out of date. However, some of the content may still be useful, so we have archived the page.

## FY 2009 Citizenship Grant Program Award Recipients

In FY 2009, USCIS awarded approximately $1.2 million in grants to 13 organizations. The performance period was October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010.

10/01/2010

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Martin Kelly, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ R. MARTIN KELLY

R. Martin Kelly
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Grady STANSEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14078

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 18, 2011.

Karin B. Hoppmann, Robert E. O’Neill, James C. Preston, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David G. Secular, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CARNES, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donna Lee Elm, appointed counsel for Raymond Grady Stansel, Jr. in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Stansel’s conviction and sentence are AF' FIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.02**CERTIFICATION**I, Gregory T. Donovan, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Trust; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     By: /s/ Gregory T. Donovan        Gregory T. Donovan  Senior Vice President of Accounting and Finance  Campbell & Company, Inc.  Managing Operator  The Campbell Fund Trust  August 14, 2007
E 3