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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 02-50767 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO FLORES BURCIAGA, also known as Ricardo Flores-Burciaga, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-02-CR-53-1-FB

-------------------- February 20, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ricardo Flores Burciaga appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally reenter the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Burciaga complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.No. 02-50767 -2- Alternatively, Burciaga contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Burciaga acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi 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 Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 the  Annual  Report  of  Domain  Registration,  Corp.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Scott
Curtis Nilson, as ____________________ of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 27, 2003                   /s/ SCOTT CURTIS NILSON
                                       ________________________
                                           Scott Curtis Nilson
                                           Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
audited   consolidated   balance   sheet  at  September  30,  2000  and  audited
consolidated  statement of operations for the twelve months ended  September 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 224
<SECURITIES>                                        16,082
<RECEIVABLES>                                        1,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                           (1)
<INVENTORY>                                             72
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    18,007
<PP&E>                                               1,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (226)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      19,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,070
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          3,195
<COMMON>                                             3,646
<OTHER-SE>                                          22,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        19,048
<SALES>                                              4,286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,286
<CGS>                                                  866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (585)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (6,717)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6,717)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1


              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, K.J.  Semikian,  the Chief
Executive Officer of Telesource International, Inc. ("Telesource"), certify that
(i) the Form 10-K for the  twelve  months  ended  December  31,  2003 (the "Form
10-K") fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information  contained in the Form
10-K fairly  presents,  in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of Telesource.


Dated: July 7, 2004                   /s/ K.J. Semikian
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      K.J. Semikian
                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                      Telesource International, Inc.
MR. P., et ux., Individually and as Next Friends of M.P., petitioners, v. WEST HARTFORD BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 17-1699.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10762

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee

v.
JOHN RAY CHEEK , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 1308 USDC No. 3:11

- CR

- 157

- 1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Ray Cheek, federal prisoner # 42969

- 177, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to this court as an unauthorized secon d or successive § 2255 motion. The clerk of cou rt docketed the transfer order itself under 14

- 10741 and directed Cheek to file an application for authorization to file a

* 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 November 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10762 Document: 00513265967 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2015No. 14

- 10762

2 successive habeas petition. When he failed to do so, that action was dismissed. This appeal, then, is from the transfer order itsel f.
The transfer of an unauthorized § 2255 motion is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See United States v. Fulton , 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied , 2015 WL 5772739 ( Nov. 2, 2015) (No. 15

- 6348). Therefore, “the appeal of such an order does not require a COA.” Id. In
addition , the record reflects that the claims asserted by Cheek were, or could have been raised, in his first § 2255 motion. See Crone v. Cockrell , 324 F.3d 833, 837 (5th Cir. 2003). Cheek has failed to sho w that the district court erred by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to decide Cheek’s application without permission from this court and by transferring the motion to this court. Accordingly, Cheek’s motion for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary . The district court correctly transferred the application to this court and that order is AFFIRMED; the transferred application has already been dismissed. Thus, no further action is available in this appeal. Case: 14-10762 Document: 00513265967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the financial statements of 9278 Communications, Inc. as of December 31, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              26,192
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,945,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,302,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,179,615
<PP&E>                                             443,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                      93,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,138,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,510,202
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            19,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,138,680
<SALES>                                         78,089,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,089,670
<CGS>                                           75,472,736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,472,736
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,581,645
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  6,835
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         6,835
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .02



</TABLE>
Bjorn Christian LUSTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-25,667-03

EX PARTE TERRY LYNN DAVIS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 23110A-422 IN THE 422ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM KAUFMAN COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Davis v. State, No. 05-06-00527-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas June 13, 2007) (not

designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his sentence was illegally ordered to run consecutively with another

sentence, he is actually innocent, and trial counsel failed to object to a “no knock” search and

investigate extraneous misconduct evidence.
On October 8, 2014, we remanded this application because the record was prematurely

forwarded to this Court. On remand, the trial court recommended that we dismiss as moot

Applicant’s claim that his sentence was illegally ordered to run consecutivelywith anothersentence.

The trial court also concluded that Applicant’s other grounds were without merit and recommended

that we deny them. We agree. Accordingly, this application is dismissed in part and denied in part.

Filed: March 29, 2017

Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. JOSE VARGAS, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 87 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JOSE VARGAS, : : : : : : : : : : : No. 89 MAL 2015 Cross Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 27th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
George E. BROWN, petitioner, v. Pam BONDI, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

No. 18-8875.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 10.9

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

                                     BETWEEN

                           ARS NETWORKS, INCORPORATED
                                       AND
                                  BETTY HARLAND


ARS Networks,  Incorporated ("ARS") Promises to re-pay to Betty Harland no later
than July 31, 2001 the sum of $100,000  Canadian Dollars loaned to ARS. Interest
shall be payable  monthly  at the rate of 8.5% per  annum.  ARS may repay all or
part of this note with accrued interest at any time without notice or bonus.

Agreed this 31st day of July 2000




Peter Hoult, Chairman
ARS Networks, Incorporated




Betty Harland
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JEREMY ALTON JONES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-1561

January 3, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Manatee County; Frederick P. Mercurio, Judge.

Jeremy Alton Jones, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1873

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the maximum

taxable income for the 15 percent rate bracket.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1999

Mr. SCARBOROUGH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase

the maximum taxable income for the 15 percent rate bracket.

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 ‘‘Middle Class Tax Re5 lief Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM TAXABLE INCOME FOR 15

7 PERCENT RATE BRACKET.

8 Section 1(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

9 (relating to adjustments in tax tables so that inflation will

10 not result in tax increases) is amended—
2

•HR 1873 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)—

2 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B)

3 and (C) as subparagraphs (C) and (D),

4 (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A)

5 the following:

6 ‘‘(B) in the case of the tables contained in

7 subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), by increasing

8 the maximum taxable income level for the 15

9 percent rate bracket and the minimum taxable

10 income level for the 28 percent rate bracket

11 otherwise determined under subparagraph (A)

12 for taxable years beginning in any calendar year

13 after 1999, by the applicable dollar amount for

14 such calendar year,’’, and

15 (C) by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’ in

16 subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) and in17 serting ‘‘subparagraphs (A) and (B)’’, and

18 (2) by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(8) APPLICABLE DOLLAR AMOUNT.—For pur20 poses of paragraph (2)(B), the applicable dollar

21 amount for any calendar year shall be determined as

22 follows:

23 ‘‘(A) JOINT RETURNS AND SURVIVING

24 SPOUSES.—In the case of the table contained in

25 subsection (a)—
3

•HR 1873 IH

Applicable

‘‘Calendar year: Dollar Amount:

2000 ......................................................................................... $2,000

2001 ......................................................................................... $4,000

2002 ......................................................................................... $6,000

2003 ......................................................................................... $8,000

2004 and thereafter ................................................................. $10,000.

1 ‘‘(B) OTHER TABLES.—In the case of the

2 table contained in subsection (b), (c), or (d)—

Applicable

‘‘Calendar year: Dollar Amount:

2000 ......................................................................................... $1,000

2001 ......................................................................................... $2,000

2002 ......................................................................................... $3,000

2003 ......................................................................................... $4,000

2004 and thereafter ................................................................. $5,000.’’

Æ
Exhibit






Execution Version


CONSENT OF GRANTOR


Dated: October 31, 2017


Reference is made to the First Lien/First Lien Intercreditor Agreement, dated as of May 2, 2016, among Barclays Bank PLC (as successor in interest to Credit Suisse AG, Cayman Islands Branch), as Collateral Agent, Barclays Bank PLC, as Authorized Representative under the Credit Agreement, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Initial Other Authorized Representative (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented, waived, or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Intercreditor Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Intercreditor Agreement.


The Grantor listed on Annex 1 hereto has read the foregoing Intercreditor Agreement and consents thereto. The Grantor agrees that it will not take any action that would be contrary to the express provisions of the foregoing Intercreditor Agreement, agrees to abide by the requirements expressly applicable to it under the foregoing Intercreditor Agreement and agrees that, except as otherwise provided therein, no First-Priority Secured Party shall have any liability to the Grantor for acting in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing Intercreditor Agreement. The Grantor confirms that the foregoing Intercreditor Agreement is for the sole benefit of the First-Priority Secured Parties and their respective successors and assigns, and that the Grantor is not an intended beneficiary or third party beneficiary thereof except to the extent otherwise expressly provided therein.


The Grantor agrees to take such further action and to execute and deliver such additional documents and instruments (in recordable form, if requested) as the Collateral Agent may reasonably request to effectuate the terms of and the lien priorities contemplated by the Intercreditor Agreement.


This Consent of Grantor shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York. Notices delivered to the Grantor pursuant to this Consent of Grantor shall be delivered in accordance with the notice provisions set forth in the Intercreditor Agreement.


[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]










Annex I (Supplement No. 1)


	
		
	Pledgor
	Jurisdiction of Organization

	DataShield, LLC
	Delaware










































A-1












IN WITNESS HEREOF, this Consent of Grantor is hereby executed by the Grantor as of the date first written above.


	
						
	 
	 
	 
	DATASHIELD, LLC
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	By:
	  /s/ Jeff Likosar
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Name:  Jeff Likosar
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	Title: CFO
	 


































































[Signature  Page  to Consent o[ Grantor]
Andrew J. JOHNSTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8840.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
cece-ex101_495.htm



Exhibit 10.1

Summary term sheet governing arrangement of consulting services Icarus Investment Corp. performs pursuant to oral agreement

 

Icarus Investment Corp. is paid $20,000 per month for consulting services. Icarus Investment Corp. performs for CECO consulting services regarding the Company’s corporate policies, marketing, strategic and financial planning, including long and short-term goals, mergers and acquisitions and other business combinations, financing, growth plans and other related matters’. 

Icarus Investment Corp. is engaged as an independent contractor and is not an employee of the Company for any purpose whatsoever, including limitation, for purposes relating to taxes, workers’ compensation or workplace safety insurance, payments require by statue or any other withholdings or remittances to any governmental agency or authority.  No course of dealing between the parties is intended to create, or shall create, an employment relationship, a joint venture, partnership or any similar relationship. CECO is interested only in the results obtained by Icarus Investment Corp. and Icarus Investment Corp. shall have sole control of the manner and means of performing its services to CECO consistent with policies and practices of CECO and with CECO’s interests and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.