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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

October 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40182

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CIRILO ALVARADO-DELGADO,

Defendant - Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-652-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cirilo Alvarado-Delgado (“Alvarado”) appeals from his

conviction and sentence for unlawful re-entry following

deportation subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2).

Alvarado argues that his conviction amounts to plain error

because he did not have an aggravated-felony conviction necessary

to establish a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Alvarado’s
No. 03-40182

-2-

pre-sentence report did not include any conviction that qualified

as an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). 

He maintains that he was subject only to the provisions of 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). As Alvarado concedes, his sentence does not

exceed the maximum under that clause, so his conviction and

sentence for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) did not amount to

plain error because it did not affect his substantial rights. 

See United States v. Ramirez-Velasquez, 322 F.3d 868, 879 (5th

Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. May 20, 2003) (No.

02-10862). The aggravated-felony provision of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) is merely a penalty provision and does not define a

separate crime. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 226 (1998). 

Alvarado contends that the district court erred in applying

a 16-level enhancement to his sentence based on his prior battery

conviction. As Alvarado concedes, his battery conviction

warrants a 16-level enhancement under the literal terms of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Alvarado has not established that

“clear contrary legislative intention” required the district

court to read the amended guideline in a manner that contradicted

its “plain language.” See United States v. Scrimgeour, 636 F.2d

1019, 1022-23 (5th Cir. 1981).

Furthermore, Alvarado maintains that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),
No. 03-40182

-3-

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at

489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000). This court must follow the precedent set in AlmendarezTorres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to

overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Energética de Minas GeraisCEMIG (the "Company") for
the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Flávio Decat de Moura, Chief Financial and Investor
Relations Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  | /s/FLÁVIO DECAT DE MOURA
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | Name:                   
| |  | Title:                  

Date:
July 1, 2004

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sira NOITHIP, Appellant.

No. 09-3474.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2010.

Filed: May 26, 2010.

Ian A. Lewis, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Springfield, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for appellant.

James J. Kelleher, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, MO, for appellee.

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*575PER CURIAM.

Sira Noithip appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1 after he pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). Counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court’s sentence is unreasonable.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (standard of review). The court did not commit any procedural error, *see United States v. Toothman,*543 F.3d 967, 970 (8th Cir.2008) (describing factors that demonstrate procedural error), and its carefully explained sentence at the bottom of the applicable range was not unreasonable, *see United States v. Sicaros-Quintero,*557 F.3d 579, 583 (8th Cir.2009) (according presumption of reasonableness to sentence at bottom of Guidelines range); *United States v. Watson,*480 F.3d 1175, 1177 (8th Cir.) (listing circumstances where sentencing court abuses its discretion resulting in unreasonable sentence), *cert. denied,*552 U.S. 927, 128 S.Ct. 305, 169 L.Ed.2d 219 (2007).

Further, having reviewed the record independently under *Pens on v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 21

|                                            |  |                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | 
|Subsidiaries
of the Registrant              |  | State or
Province of Formation
|                                            |  |                                |  | 
|                                            |  |                               
|North American Subsidiaries                 |  |                               
|MTS Testing
  Systems (Canada) Ltd.         |  | Ontario                       
|                                            |  |                               
|International Subsidiaries                  |  |                               
|MTS Holdings
  France, SARL                 |  | France                        
|MTS Sensor Technologie und Verwaltungs-GmbH |  | Germany                       
|MTS
  Automotive Sensors GmbH               |  | Germany                       
|MTS Sensor
  Technologie GmbH and Co. KG    |  | Germany                       
|MTS Systems
  SAS                           |  | France                        
|MTS Systems GmbH                            |  | Germany                       
|MTS Systems Ltd.                            |  | United Kingdom                
|MTS Systems Norden AB                       |  | Sweden                        
|MTS Systems srl                             |  | Italy                         
|MTS (Japan) Ltd.                            |  | Japan                         
|MTS Korea, Inc.                             |  | Korea, Republic of            
|MTS Sensors
  Technology K.K.               |  | Japan                         
|MTS Systems
  (China) Inc.                  |  | China,
  Peoples Republic of 
|MTS Systems
  (Hong Kong) Inc.              |  | Hong Kong                     
|MTS Systems
  Switzerland GmbH              |  | Switzerland                   
|MTS Systems
  (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.          |  | China,
  Peoples Republic of 

---
Document Headings

                    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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Intelligence Needs for Homeland Defense Chemical Panel will meet in closed session on June 5-6, 2001, in Las Vegas, Nevada. This Task Force will consider a broad spectrum of intelligence issues as they relate to chemical warfare issues, from early threat detection to deterrence, through response including attribution.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will review and evaluate the Department's ability to evaluate the collection and analysis of target-related information and weapon unique information relative to chemical warfare issues; examine the role of HUMINT against these missions as well as the technology that the HUMINT collectors need to be equipped with; consider strategic indications and warning and tactical warning dissemination and how the two need to be merged; analyze methodology to correlate large data flows spatially temporally and functionally; and assess the robustness of today's intelligence apparatus for coping with these challenges.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board Task Force meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

Dated: May 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-13460 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20354

Summary Calendar

JESSE RANDOLPH CURRY, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CV-2119

Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Randolph Curry, Jr., Texas prisoner # 939167, moves for a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s denial of his 

motion for leave to file a proposed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. 

The Rule 60(b) motion challenged the denial of Curry’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 

corpus petition, which attacked his Texas aggravated assault conviction. 

 

* 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 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20354 Document: 00514916315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2019
No. 18-20354

2

Curry argues that the motion for leave to file was improperly denied on the 

ground that his Rule 60(b) motion was time barred.

To the extent that Curry was required to obtain a COA, he has not shown 

that reasonable jurists could conclude that the district court erred in denying 

the motion for leave to file a Rule 60(b) motion. See Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 

F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, his request for a COA is DENIED. 

To the extent that he does not need a COA, the order of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 

Unit A Jan. 1981).

 Case: 18-20354 Document: 00514916315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2019
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Capmark Financial Group Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), the undersigned officers of Company hereby
certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
May 14, 2008

| |  | /s/WILLIAM F. ALDINGER
| |  | ----------------------
| |  | Name:                 
| |  | Title:                

Date:
May 14, 2008

| |  | /s/GREGORY J. MCMANUS
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 23.3****CONSENT OF EXPERT**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (the“Company”) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.     We hereby consent to the use of and reference to our name and the Nariin Sukhait TechnicalReport dated March 2007 (the “Technical Report”), and the inclusion of information derived from theTechnical Report, under the heading “Item 3: Description of the Business – Mongolian Coal Division- Nariin Sukhait Coal Project” and the use of and reference to our name in “Item 11: Interests ofExperts” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2006, dated March30, 2007 and in the 40-F.Sincerely,Norwest Corporation   */s/ Richard D. Tifft III* Name: Richard D. Tifft III, PG
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 China Holdings Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul K. Kelly, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



May 15, 2009By:

/s/ Paul K. KellyPaul K. KellyChairman of the Board of Directors and ChiefExecutive Officer (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
#### Inter-City Tire and Auto Center, Inc., a New Jersey Corp., Appellant, v Sterling National Bank et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 1, 2010;

decided April 6, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying a motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order dismiss*825ing the appeal, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]). Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions denied.
Exhibit 31.2  Section 302 Certification of Chief Financial Officer   I, Eduard Korsinsky, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;      5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: November 13, 2007  /s/ Eduard Korsinsky Eduard Korsinsky Title: Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
1177 Avenue of Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

August 22, 2023

Submitted via CFTC Portal 

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick 

Office of the Secretariat 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20581 

Re: TW SEF LLC – Notice to Participants 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: 

Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act (the “Act”) and Section 40.6(a) of the 

regulations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”), Tradeweb SEF 

LLC (“TW SEF”) hereby notifies the Commission that it is self-certifying a Cleared Error Swapsprocedures and requirements Notice to All Participants of TW SEF LLC: (Cleared Error Swapsprocedures and requirements Notice”).The Notice will become effective on September 6, 2023, 

no fewer than ten business days from the date hereof. 

In connection with its submission, TW SEF hereby notifies the Commission that: 

1. TW SEF certifies that it has posted the Cleared Error Swaps- procedures and 

requirements Notice on TW SEF’s website and has provided this notification to the 

Commission; 

2. TW SEF certifies that the Cleared Error Swap procedures and requirements Notice 

complies with the TW SEF Rulebook, the Act and the Commission’s regulations; and 

3. No substantive opposing views with respect to the Cleared Error Swap procedures and 

requirements Notice were expressed to TW SEF by its governing board or committee 

members, members of TW SEF or market participants 

Should you have questions regarding this submission, please contact the undersigned at (646) 

767-4923 or by email at Devi.Shanmugham@tradeweb.com. 

Very truly yours, 

Devi Shanmugham 

TW SEF CCO 
Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

August 22, 2023   

2 

Attachment A 

Cleared Error Swap procedures and requirements Notice
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLICACCOUNTANTS

 

We consent to incorporation byreference in the registration statement (Registration No. 333-75070) on FormS-8 of INVESTools Inc. of our report dated February 26, 2004, with respect tothe consolidated balance sheets of INVESTools Inc. and Subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity and cash flowsfor the years then ended which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annualreport on Form 10-K of INVESTools Inc.  The audit report covering the December 31, 2003 financialstatements refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill andother intangible assets effective January 1, 2002 and to a change in the methodof accounting for stock-based compensation effective January 1, 2003.

 

Our report refers to our auditof the disclosures added to revise the 2001 consolidated financial statements,as more fully described in Note 3 to the consolidated financialstatements.  However, we were notengaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 consolidatedfinancial statements other than with respect to such disclosures.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP    |   |
|-----------------|--------|
| KPMG LLP        |
| Houston,  Texas |
| March 29,  2004 |

 

----