alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40084 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ARTURO CHAVEZ

- HERNANDEZ, also known as Alberto Arturo Gonzalez

Hernandez, true name Juan Zamora

- Murillo , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 421

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Chavez

Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavez

- Hernandez has filed a response. 1 The record

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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.

1 Chavez

- Hernandez urges that Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and United States v. Gonzalez

- Longoria , 813 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted , 815 F.3d 189 (5th Cir.) , vacated , No. 15

- 50051 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016) (en banc) apply to his case. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016No. 16

- 40084

2 is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Chavez

Hernandez ’s claim of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Chavez

- Hernandez ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2.

However, Chavez

- Hernandez was not sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act; nor was he senten ced under a “residual” definition of crime of violence. Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 25, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-10692

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00218-CR-J-32-HTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

DIJON RENARD JASMIN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 25, 2008)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dijon Renard Jasmin appeals his 180-month sentence for possession of a
2

firearm by a convicted felon. Jasmin’s sole contention is that in finding he

qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) and U.S.S.G. §

4B1.4, the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by considering prior

convictions that were neither admitted by him nor found by a jury. Jasmin

concedes that Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219,

140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), forecloses his challenge. He argues, however, that later

Supreme Court decisions seem to have called into question the holding in

Almendarez-Torres and raises his objection in order to preserve it for further

review in the event that the Supreme Court overrules Almendarez-Torres. 

The objection is duly noted and preserved in case the Supreme Court

changes the law in the future. In the meantime, we have to follow the law on this

issue as it is. United States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1316 n.3 (11th

Cir. 2005); United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005); see

also Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 252-53, 188 S.Ct. 1969, 1978 (1998)

(instructing that Supreme Court “decisions remain binding precedent until [it]

see[s] fit to reconsider them, regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised

doubts about their continuing vitality”). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4036 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4036

  To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned 
  aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately 
lethal action and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or 
              lethal action to the Department of Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2014

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to 
   the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Central Intelligence Agency from using an unmanned 
  aerial vehicle to carry out a weapons strike or other deliberately 
lethal action and to transfer the authority to conduct such strikes or 
              lethal action to the Department of Defense.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY OPERATION OF 
              UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE STRIKES AND TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY 
              TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
officer or employee of, or contractor or detailee to, the Central 
Intelligence Agency shall use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a 
weapons strike or other lethal action.
    (b) Transfer to Department of Defense.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the President shall transfer to the Department of 
Defense all authority to use an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out a 
weapons strike or other lethal action.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Postal Rate Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Rate Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of briefing. 

# SUMMARY:

The Commission will serve as a general host for a visiting delegation from PostEurop on October 11 through 14, 2005. The agenda includes briefings on Commission operations, functions and activities, as well as related issues, such as postal reform, efficient component pricing, negotiated service agreements, worksharing, and distinctions between domestic and European postal models. It also includes Postal Service briefings, a postal facility tour, meetings with members of Congress and their staff, and discussions with mailers.

# DATES:

October 11 through 14, 2005.

# ADDRESSES:

Postal Rate Commission, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6818.

Dated: September 22, 2005.

Steven W. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-19311 Filed 9-22-05; 4:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
Filed 2/25/15 P. v. Cervantes CA2/4 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION FOUR 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

JONATHAN CERVANTES, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B253397 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. BA407022) 

 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. 

 Mark J. Shusted, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 
2

 Defendant and appellant Jonathan Cervantes appeals from a judgment 

entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of grand theft (Pen. Code, 

§ 487, subd. (a)), with the finding by the court (following appellant’s admission) 

that he had served a prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, 

subdivision (b).1

 As here relevant, the evidence at trial showed that defendant and 

a male companion entered the studio used by a deejay during a party at 2515 West 

7th Street in Los Angeles. After they left, the laptop used by the deejay was found 

missing. The court sentenced appellant to the upper term of three years and 

imposed an additional one-year enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 667, 

subdivision (b) for a total of four years. The court suspended execution of 

sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years, under the condition that 

he serve 372 days in jail. The court also awarded 186 days of presentence actual 

custody credits and 186 of presentence conduct credits, for a total of 372 days of 

credit. 

 After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an 

opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to the 

holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. 

 On August 26, 2014, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which 

to submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No response has 

been received to date. 

 We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues 

exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate 

review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 

528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.) 

 

1

 The jury acquitted him of burglary (§ 459), robbery (§ 211), and found gang 

allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) in all counts not true. 
3

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 WILLHITE, Acting P.J. 

 We concur: 

 MANELLA, J. 

 COLLINS, J.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133133 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WORKING, INC., Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Justices Appellee, 

v SC: 133133 

 COA: 264356 

Oakland CC: 2004-058369-CB 

ELAINE D. HEITSCH, Personal Representative

of the Estate of AGNES DARDEN, Deceased,

Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
# Official Journal C 369/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.369.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 369 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5617 December 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.369.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 369

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5617 December 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2013/C 369/01 | Report on the annual accounts of the Artemis Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies | 1 |
| 2013/C 369/02 | Report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies | 10 |
| 2013/C 369/03 | Report on the annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies | 18 |
| 2013/C 369/04 | Report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies | 25 |
| 2013/C 369/05 | Report on the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies | 35 |
| 2013/C 369/06 | Report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s reply | 49 |
| 2013/C 369/07 | Report on the annual accounts of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s reply | 57 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2013/C 369/01

Report on the annual accounts of the Artemis Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies

1

2013/C 369/02

Report on the annual accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies

10

2013/C 369/03

Report on the annual accounts of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies

18

2013/C 369/04

Report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies

25

2013/C 369/05

Report on the annual accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s replies

35

2013/C 369/06

Report on the annual accounts of the SESAR Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s reply

49

2013/C 369/07

Report on the annual accounts of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2012, together with the Joint Undertaking’s reply

57

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
STATE of North Carolina v. David A. DAVIS.

No. COA15-1138.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 15, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
State of North Carolina v. Leandros Crosby

No. COA16-454

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
Exhibit
32.01





CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Mark
Gustafson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of Triangle Petroleum Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
April 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Triangle Petroleum
Corporation.




By:
              
              /s/    MARK
      GUSTAFSONDate:
      June 3, 2009
              
              Name:
              
              Mark
      GustafsonTitle:
              
              Chief Executive Officer




I, Shaun
Toker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Triangle Petroleum Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April
30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Triangle Petroleum
Corporation.




By:
              
              /s/    SHAUN
      TOKERDate:
      June 3, 2009
              
              Name:
              
              Shaun
      TokerTitle:
              
              Chief
      Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .


EXHIBIT 11



                      UNIVERSAL AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Three Months Ended September 30,    Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                            -------------------------------     ------------------------------
                                                                2003              2002              2003               2002
                                                                ----              ----              ----               ----
<S>                                                         <C>                <C>               <C>                <C>
Earnings (Loss) per share:

BASIC NET INCOME (LOSS)  PER COMMON SHARE
Numerator:
       Income (Loss) from continuing operations             $  (812,217)       $    11,985       $(1,771,604)       $   681,121

Denominator:
       Weighted average common shares outstanding             8,437,589          8,220,949         8,296,608          8,187,803
       Effect of dilutive securities
             Conversion of preferred stock                            -          3,014,380                 -          3,014,380
              Common stock equivalents from
               warrants and options                                   -                  -                 -                  -
                                                            -----------        -----------       -----------        -----------
Denominator for diluted earnings per common share             8,437,589         11,235,329         8,296,608         11,202,183
                                                            ===========        ===========       ===========        ===========

       Basic net income (loss) per common share             $     (0.09)       $      0.00       $     (0.21)       $      0.08
       Diluted net income (loss) per common share           $     (0.09)       $      0.00       $     (0.21)       $      0.06
</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RAMANBHAI PATEL,

 Appellant,

v.

JIMMY WOFFORD, DAVID

HARDWICK, RUDY RAMOS AND

HULON PASS,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-08-00205-CV

Appeal from the

83rd Judicial District Court

of Pecos County, Texas 

(TC# 6595) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant has complied with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a)(1), and

having considered the motion we conclude it should be granted. Therefore we grant Appellant’s

motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. Costs will be taxed against Appellant. See 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

September 11, 2008

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.
STATE v. Quentin Lee DICK

386P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 14, 2016

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Dick, Quinton Lee.

James M. Stanley, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of October 2016 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of October 2016."
* 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. 07-11256

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANUEL FLORES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-87-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Flores has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Flores has filed a response. The record is

insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Flores’s claims of

ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on

direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no

opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 22, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-11256

2

United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record,

counsel’s brief, and Flores’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.