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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21179 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FREDI MAURICIO CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-314-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fredi Mauricio Contreras was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He appeals the district court’s interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) at his resentencing. He argues that his prior felony conviction for possession of heroin did not merit the eight-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an aggravated felony, and that he should have received only the four-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any otherNo. 01-21179 -2- felony.” Contreras’s arguments regarding the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” were recently rejected by this court in United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court did not err in assessing an eight-level adjustment, pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), to Contreras’s sentencing guideline calculation. Id. For the first time on appeal, Contreras argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a mere sentencing factor and not an element of the offense. He contends that the unconstitutionality of the statute is not remedied by treating the prior aggravated felony as an element of the offense and including it in the indictment. Contreras concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this argument lacks merit.
AFFIRMED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

109 KA 09-02645 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

MICHAEL B. BARKSDALE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Brian M. McCarthy, J.), rendered December 4, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
| |                                                                                                   |                                                                    
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | KPMG LLP

Suite 900  777 Dunsmuir Street
PO Box 10426 Pacific Centre
Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3
Canada | Telephone 604-691-3000
      Telefax 604-691-3031
      www.kpmg.ca



Exhibit 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT



The Board of Directors

Viscount Systems Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-96799) of Viscount Systems Inc. of our report dated February 8, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Viscount Systems Inc. as of December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of stockholders equity, operations and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Viscount Systems Inc.





KPMGLLP(signed)

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

March 25, 2003













| | KPMG
      LLP , a Canadian owned limited liability partnership established under the
      laws of Ontario, is a member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss association.
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000840 14-MAR-2017 08:08 AM
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00206-CV

KEVIN PRENDERGAST AND JAMES INBODEN, Appellants

V.

DANIEL J. HOFFMAN AND DANIEL J. HOFFMAN, LLC D/B/A DANIEL J. 

HOFFMAN & ASSOCIATES, FKA DANIEL J. HOFFMAN, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-07609

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed November 9, 2011.

Appellants filed a timely motion for new trial on December 9, 2011. Appellants’ notice 

of appeal was filed March 1, 2012.

When an appellant has filed a timely motion for new trial, the notice of appeal 

must be filed within ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.1(a).
2

Appellants’ notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time 

is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal 

beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided 

by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the 

appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C); Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 617-

18; Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Appellants’ notice of appeal was not filed within the 

fifteen-day period provided by Rule 26.3.

On July 2, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention 

to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellants’

response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 25, 2012, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on various 

grounds. Having dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we deny appellees’ motion 

as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, McCally, and Busby.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                          [BANK OF NEW YORK LETTERHEAD]

                                BANK OF NEW YORK

                              Officer's Certificate
                              ---------------------

                                 March 28, 2003



MERRILL LYNCH DEPOSITOR, INC.
North Tower, 7th Floor
4 World Financial Center
New York, New York 10080

                   PREFERREDPLUS AND PPLUS TRUST CERTIFICATES

The undersigned, Kevin Cremin, Vice-President-Business Manager of The Bank of
New York, a New York corporation (the "Trustee"), hereby certifies in such
capacity that, based on his/her knowledge, the Trustee is in compliance with all
conditions and covenants applicable to the Trustee under the Standard Terms for
Trust Agreements dated February 20, 1998 between Merrill Lynch Depositor Inc. as
depositor (the "Depositor") and the Trustee, as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York, as trustee and securities intermediary (the "Securities
Intermediary"), in each case as amended by a series supplement between the
Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary for each series of trust
certificates listed in the attached schedule.



                                       1
<PAGE>


                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  BANK OF NEW YORK
                                                  not in its individual capacity
                                                  but as Trustee


                                                  By: /s/ Kevin Cremin
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                  Name: Kevin Cremin
                                                  Title:  Vice President



                                        2
<PAGE>


                                    SCHEDULE

Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 IBM Z-2 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 H-Z3 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 F-Z4 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 TRV-C1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1998 HLT-1 Trust
Public STEERS(R) Series 1999 REN-C1 Trust
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CCR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ATT-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series NAI-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FRD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CZN-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series CTR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series LMG-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series QWS-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ALL-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series BLC-2
PreferredPLUS Trust Series ELP-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series MSD-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series VER-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series UPC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series FAR-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GEC-1
PreferredPLUS Trust Series GRC-1
PPLUS Trust Series PMC-1
PPLUS Trust Series VAL-1
PPLUS Trust Series GSG-1


                                        3
<PAGE>
# C_2018142EN.01002502.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka

(Case C-38/18)

(2018/C 142/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Bari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 16, 18 and 20(b) of Directive 2012/29/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding the victim of a crime from having to give evidence again before the court sitting in a new composition when one of the parties to the proceedings, in accordance with Articles 511(2) and 525(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as consistently interpreted by the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation), does not consent to that court reading the written record of the oral evidence previously given by that victim, in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule, before a different bench in the same proceedings?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).

1

---
Order entered September 11, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-11-01296-CV

AMY SELF, Appellant

V.

TINA KING AND ELIZABETH TUCKER, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 001-1286-2010



### ORDER

Appellant’s Amended Motion for Rehearing is DENIED

.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD
JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

584 

CA 10-02303 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER 

CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS NATIONAL 

GRID, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

TOWN OF NIAGARA ASSESSOR, TOWN OF NIAGARA 

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, TOWN OF NIAGARA 

AND COUNTY OF NIAGARA, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ALBANY (MARK D. LANSING OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL B. RISMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County

(Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered February 3, 2010 in proceedings

pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7. The judgment denied

the petitions and awarded respondents statutory costs. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1153

Natural Gas Index Swaps - Waha - Platts Gas Daily Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price 

published by Platts Inside FERC Waha, for Floating Price B, from the average of the daily prices 

published by Platts Gas Daily Waha, for Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily Waha published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC Waha

published price for the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 440 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1517

Nickel Fixed Swap - LME Nickel CMA Swap - LME

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the price published by LME for the location specified in 

Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the LME Official Cash 

Settlement Price for Nickel of 99.80% purity (minimum) conforming to B39-79 (2008) for each business 

day that it is determined during the contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract quantity shall be metric tons. Each contract based shall be valued as the contract quantity 

in metric tons multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars per metric ton. The minimum price fluctuation shall be 

$0.01 per metric ton. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last calendar day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




















In
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q as of and for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Michele E. LoBianco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to
the best of 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.
































/s/Michele E.
LoBianco


Michele
E. LoBianco


Chief
Financial Officer


Secretary
and Treasurer


May 15,
2008
---

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

I, Stuart Wooldridge, President of Orca International Language
Schools Inc., hereby 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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Orca
      International Language Schools Inc. for the quarter ended December 31,
      2007 (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 Orca International Language Schools
Inc..                                                                                

Dated: April 11, 2008

| | /s/ Stuart
      Wooldridge                                        
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Stuart Wooldridge                                                  
| | President and Director                                             
| | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)
| | Orca International Language Schools Inc.                           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Orca
International Language Schools Inc. and will be retained by Orca International
Language Schools Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 28555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-4668]


Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., El Paso, TX; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-1 concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 
250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on March 26, 
2001, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Johnson & 
Johnson Medical, Inc., El Paso, Texas. The subject firm produces 
disposable surgical products (aprons, drapes, packs).
    The petitioning workers work at a production facility outside of 
the United States and consequently have no standing to file a petition. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose; and the investigation has been terminated.
    A petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance has been filed on behalf 
of workers at the subject firm (TA-W-38, 932). A determination on that 
petition will be made concurrently with this determination.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 8th day of May, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-13001 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
EXHIBIT 5.1





August 11, 2006



Board of Directors

Insignia Systems, Inc.

6470 Sycamore Court North

Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369-6032



RE:    REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:



In connection with the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed by Insignia Systems, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission, relating to the offering of an additional 250,000 shares of common stock, $.01 par value, under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, please be advised that as counsel to the Company, upon examination of such corporate documents and records as we have deemed necessary or advisable for the purposes of this opinion, it is our opinion that:



| | 1. |  | The Company is a validly existing corporation in good standing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. |  | Upon issuance by the Company after the Companys receipt of
the purchase price for the shares, the shares shall be duly authorized, legally and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement.



Very truly yours,



/s/   Best & Flanagan LLP



Best & Flanagan LLP

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Karen Kristine Silvio v. Jason B. Ostrom and Nicole Sain

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 00293

- CV

Trial court case number: 937164

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2 of Harris County

On January 31, 2013, the Court denied appellant’s “Motion to Request that the Affidavit of Indigence Filed with her Docketing Statement be Approved.” A motion for rehearing, if any, was due by February 15, 2013. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 49.1. A motion for extension of time to file

a motion for rehearing was due by March 4, 2013. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.8

. Appellant e

- filed a motion to reconsider the order on March 14, 2013. Appellant e

- filed

a motion for extension of time t o file the motion to reconsider on March 15, 2013. These motions were not timely filed.

A ccordingly, appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the motion for

reconsideration is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.8. We strike a ppellant’s motion for

reconsideration

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 11, 2013