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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-50150

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE MACIAS-CASTRO, also

known as Martin Sotel-Hernandez,

also known as Rogelio Martinez-Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CR-106-All

_________________________________________________________________

November 25, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jose Macias-Castro appeals his conviction and sentence

for being a previously deported alien who reentered the United

States without permission and for falsely representing himself to

be a United States citizen. the primary issue at trial was where

Macias was born. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the jury’s verdict, was sufficient to allow a rational trier of

fact to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Macias was born
2

in Mexico. See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th

Cir. 1992).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Macias’s motion for a new trial. Macias did not meet his burden of

showing that the whereabouts of his father could not have been

ascertained prior to trial with due diligence. United States v.

Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v.

Mulderig, 120 F.3d 534, 545 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court did not commit plain error in raising

Macias’s base offense level by 16 levels because of his previous

conviction for retaliation. United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d

160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Macias argues, without

support, that he did not receive a one-year sentence for the crime

and that it thus did not meet the definition of an aggravated

felony as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Macias’s

presentence report (“PSR”) indicates that Macias served two years

for the offense. The PSR is considered reliable and may be

considered as evidence by the court when making sentencing

determination. United States v. Gonzalez, 76 F.3d 1339, 1346 (5th

Cir. 1996); United States v. Lghodaro, 967 F.2d 1028, 1030 (5th

Cir. 1992).

This court does not consider Macias’s arguments that his

sentence was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause and

that the government presented improperly cumulative evidence
3

because these arguments were raised for the first time in Macias’s

reply brief. See United States v. Jackson, 50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7

(5th Cir. 1995).

A F F I R M E D.
Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1-1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 43
SECTION VIII.

Related Case(s) If Any (Continued):

• Wapp Tech Ltd. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No. 4:21-cv-00671-ALM (same 

plaintiffs and same 5 asserted patents were at issue – dismissed on November 28, 2022)

• Wapp Tech Ltd. et al. v. Bank of America N.A., 4:21-cv-00670-ALM (same plaintiffs and 

same 5 asserted patents were at issue – dismissed on January 25, 2023)

• Wapp Tech Ltd. et al. v. Bank of America Corp., 4:18-cv-00519-ALM (same plaintiffs 

and 3 of the 5 asserted patents were at issue – dismissed on September 20, 2021)

• Wapp Tech Ltd. et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 4:18-cv-00501-ALM (same plaintiffs and 3 

of the 5 asserted patents were at issue – dismissed on January 11, 2022)

• Wapp Tech Ltd. et al. v. Micro Focus International PLC, 4:18-cv-00469-ALM (same 

plaintiffs and 3 of the 5 asserted patents were at issue – dismissed on November 23, 

2021)

Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1-1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 44
Case 4:23-cv-01137 Document 1-1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 45
Juan PEREZ-ROMAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7608.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

WARNER RECORDS INC., et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALTICE USA, INC. and CSC HOLDINGS, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-576-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 

Defendants Altice USA, Inc. and CSC Holdings, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt No. 33.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds in

light of the record and the applicable law, the Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

(Dkt. No. 25) is extended to March 4, 2024, and Defendants’ reply deadline is extended to March 

18, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 2453
Michael Boyd CROWLEY, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-5379

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00273-CV

In re Robert Galvin

J. A. B., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 200 TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY,

NO. D-1-FM-11-004474, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of J.A.B. The subject of this

proceeding is Robert Galvin, appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on April 1, 2013, and his brief was due

May 21, 2013. On May 28, 2013, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than

June 7, 2013. To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Robert Galvin shall appear in person before

this Court on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in the Third Court of Appeals courtroom,

located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in Austin,

Travis County, Texas, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have sanctions
imposed for his failure to obey our May 28, 2013 order. This order to show cause will be

withdrawn and Galvin will be relieved of his obligation to appear before this Court as ordered

above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief before June 26, 2013.

It is ordered on June 17, 2013.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,277
<PP&E>                                       1,322,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                (228,683)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,185,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,238
<BONDS>                                        790,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    141,867
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,185,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,211
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,254
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,254
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 16,384
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,407
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.85
        


</TABLE>
No. 6:23-cv-00519

DeMichael Mims,

Plaintiff,

v.

Wells Fargo Bank,

Defendant.

ORDER 

Plaintiff DeMichael Mims, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by 

defendant Wells Fargo Bank. The case was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. On October 30, 2023, the 

magistrate judge issued a report recommending that this case be 

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 4. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. Doc. 7.

The court reviews the objected-to portions of a report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de 

novo review, the court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

In his objections, plaintiff maintains his assertions that defendant is breaching its fiduciary duty by failing to follow plaintiff’s instructions to apply credits to his principal balance, holding 

his securities from him, and closing his account without his authorization. Doc. 7. These objections simply restate plaintiff’s allegations and fail to show how the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any such claims. The court has reviewed the pleadings and filings in this case and agrees that it lacks subject-matter 

jurisdiction. 

Case 6:23-cv-00519-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 12/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 42
- 2 -

Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. All motions pending in this civil action are denied.

So ordered by the court on December 4, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00519-JCB-JDL Document 8 Filed 12/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 43
James Bedford ALFORD, Petitioner, v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

No. 19-5120

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2302

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service located at

307 Main Street in Johnson City, New York, as the ‘‘James W. McCabe,

Sr. Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1999

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

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the building of the United States Postal Service

located at 307 Main Street in Johnson City, New York,

as the ‘‘James W. McCabe, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The building of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 307 Main Street in Johnson City,

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James

7 W. McCabe, Sr. Post Office Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 2302 IH

1 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James W. McCabe,

3 Sr. Post Office Building’’.

Æ
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

LADARION HUGHES, et al. 

Plaintiffs

v.

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

Defendant

Case No. 6:23-cv-344-JDK

Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted to practice in this Court, and I appear in this case as counsel for Plaintiffs 

Ladarion Hughes, Angela Alonzo, and Demarcus Lively. 

DATED this 20th day of September 2023 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/

A. Dami Animashaun 

355 S. Grand Ave, Suite 2450

Los Angeles, CA 90071

dami@animashaun.me

929-266-3971

Counsel for Plaintiffs & Proposed Class

Case 6:23-cv-00344-JDK Document 7 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 127
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, AND AT&T CORP., 

 Defendants. 

ERICSSON INC. and 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenors.

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ALICE SNEDEKER 

Notice is hereby given that Alice Snedeker of the law firm Duane Morris LLP, admitted to 

practice in this Court, enters her appearance as counsel of record for AT&T Services Inc., AT&T 

Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp. and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. Ms. 

Snedeker will accept service of all pleadings, discovery, orders, notices, correspondence, and other 

material related to this litigation on their behalf at her contact information below. 

Dated: December 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Alice Snedeker 

Alice Snedeker 

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Counsel for AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility 

LLC, AT&T Corp., Intervenors Ericsson Inc. and 

Nokia of America Corporation

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 878
 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 12, 2023. 

/s/ Alice Snedeker 

 Alice Snedeker 

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 27 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 879
Alauna Gaye MORRIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-5139.

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
exhibit10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1


with respect to


LEASE AGREEEMENT


DATED AS OF JULY6, 2010


BETWEEN VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC.


AND VISHAY PRECISION GROUP, INC.







This Amendment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of the 21 day of February, 2012 by and between Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., as Lessor (the “Lessor”), on the one hand, and Vishay Precision Group, Inc., as Lessee (the “Lessee”), on the other hand.  Reference is made to the Lease Agreement dated as of July 6, 2010 by and between Lessor and Lessee (the “Lease”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are parties to the Lease under which Lessor leases to Lessee a space at Lessor’s facility in Malvern, Pennsylvania (“Industrial Facility”);  and







WHEREAS, Lessee has requested to lease a smaller space at the Industrial Facility and Lessor has accepted Lessee’s request subject to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.







AGREEMENT







NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows:







I.                 AMENDMENTS







1. In accordance with Section Fourteen H. of the Lease, the Lease is hereby amended, as follows:








	
(a)  

	
Schedule A attached to the Lease is hereby replaced with Schedule A attached to this Amendment.  For the avoidance of doubt, the term “Leased Premises” referenced in the Lease shall mean as of the effective date of this Amendment, the area shown in red (excluding the vacated space marked in blue) in Schedule A attached herein.













	
(b)  

	
The first sentence in Section Three of the Lease is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:












“Lessee shall pay an annual rent of $42,077.60 (Forty Two Thousand Seventy Seven Dollars and Sixty Cents) during the Term of this Lease for the Leased Premises”.







II.      MISCELLANEOUS







2. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.







3. Capitalized terms used herein without definitions shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Lease.







4. This Amendment shall become effective retroactively as of January 1, 2012.







5. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered by a duly authorized officer or representative of each of Lessor and Lessee as of the date set forth above.












VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY, INC.












By:  /s/ Carl Fritz


Name:  Carl Fritz


Title:  Sr. Vice President


Administrative President for the Americas












VISHAY PRECISION GROUP, INC.












By:  /s/ William M. Clancy


Name:  William M. Clancy


Title:  CFO











  





  











  













 


SCHEDULE A


 


 




 


 


[Drawing of Vishay Buildings B & C, with shaded areas representing leased premises.]
Exhibit 10.2


 


	Original
 Amount	 	Bank	 	Payment
 Terms/Monthly
 Installment	 	Due Date	 	Interest Rate	 	Collateral
	R$	2,000,000	 	Itau	 	8 Installment	 	December 24, 2012	 	1.45% am	 	Navy receivables
Antonio MACLI, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7327

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2098 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2098

     To suspend temporarily the duty on dark couverture chocolate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 1999

Mr. Frelinghuysen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on dark couverture chocolate.

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

SECTION 1. DARK COUVERTURE CHOCOLATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``    9902.18.06    Dark couverture   Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     chocolate                                                               31/2003          ''
                     (provided for                                                                             .
                     in subheading
                     1806.20.50)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Darryl A. ROBINSON, petitioner, v. Tony BAYNES.

No. 18-6598.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/25/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       51,110
COMMITMENTS
   1,949    5,993    3,768   45,379   41,144   51,096   50,905       14      205

CHANGES FROM 06/18/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        195)
      90      802      218       69     -786      377      234     -182      -39

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     3.8     11.7      7.4     88.8     80.5    100.0     99.6      0.0      0.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       45)
       6        8        8       22       25       34       37`

---

Updated June 28, 2013
Robert William WAZNEY, Petitioner, v. Kenneth NELSON, Warden.

No. 19-7597.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Comfort Delando ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 19-6971

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.B.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 148 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.B.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 149 EAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Marshall Henry ELLIS, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA.

No. 19-7390.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma denied.
Jovanna EDGE, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF EVERETT, WASHINGTON.

No. 19-976.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.