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. 08-50107

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

URIEL GUTIERREZ-MEDINA, also known as Javier Robert Rocha

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-2477-ALL

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Uriel Gutierrez-Medina (Gutierrez) appeals the sentence following his

guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully presentin the United States following

removal. The district court determined that Gutierrez’s second prior California

conviction for possession of methamphetamine qualified as an “aggravated

felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).

Gutierrez argues that, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez

v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006), his second conviction for simple

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50107

2

possession of methamphetamine under California law does not constitute an

“aggravated felony.” He contends that his two prior drug possession convictions

did not establish a prior aggravated felony conviction because the Government

did not plead and prove the prior convictions, and he was not convicted under

California recidivist enhancement procedures. He recognizes that the Court in

Lopez, 127 S. Ct. at 630 n.6, observed in a footnote that 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) makes

a second possession conviction a federal felony ifthe Government shows knowing

possession and proves a prior possession conviction through the procedures

specified in 21 U.S.C. § 851. However, he argues that under Lopez, the second

state possession conviction must be brought under state recidivist procedures

that conform to the procedures in § 844 and § 851.

We recently rejected the argument raised by Gutierrez. See United States

v. Cepeda-Rios, 530 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court properly

determined that Gutierrez’s second prior California conviction for possession of

methamphetamine was an “aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). See id.

AFFIRMED.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00238

- CR

MARSHALL DESHUN PARKER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 0417X

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R
Our review of the clerk’s record in this case indicates that this record contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(1). The clerk’s record contains the appellant’s social security number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the clerk’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal the elect ronically

- clerk’s record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: May 2 8 , 2015
State of North Carolina v. Bryan Alan Johnson

No. COA16-509

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. IAC CLAIM DENIED.
# C_2012379EN.01002101.xml

| 8.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 379/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 379/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Arbos v Commission

(Case T-161/06) (1)

1

(Action for damages - ‘Culture 2000’ programme - Grants made for projects - Claims for payment of various sums - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissible)

2012/C 379/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arbos Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (Klagenfurt, Austria) (represented by: H. Karl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Buhler, then L. Pignataro-Nolin and W. Molls, and finally W. Molls and D. Roussanov, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for compensation from the Commission, first, for payment of EUR 38 585,42 plus interest at 12 % from 1 January 2001 and EUR 27 618,91 plus interest at 12 % from 1 March 2003 and, second, the payment of EUR 26 459,38 excluding VAT for fees for lawyers instructed during the pre-litigation phase.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arbos Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arbos Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
                      LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Liberty Lehigh Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership II
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership III
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation
Liberty Property Philadelphia Trust
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership IV East
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership IV West
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation IV East
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation IV West
Liberty Property Philadelphia Corporation V
Liberty Property Philadelphia Limited Partnership V
Liberty Property Development Corp.
Liberty Property Development Corp. II
Liberty Special Purpose Trust
Liberty UK Development Corp.
LP Malvern Limited Partnership
LP Malvern LLC
Land Holdings Realty LLC
Rivers Business Commons Associates Limited Partnership
Aymer House Limited
Liberty Property Philadelphia Navy Yard Limited Partnership
Liberty Property Philadelphia Navy Yard Corporation
Liberty Property/Synterra Limited Partnership
Liberty Venture I, LP
Liberty Venture I, LLC
Silversword Properties Limited
Vine Street Uxbridge Limited
Cambridge Medipark Limited
Rouse Kent Limited
Rouse Kent (Residential) Limited
UK Portfolio Management Company, Ltd.
Kings Hill Estate Management Company Limited
Rouse Kent Investments Limited
Rouse Kent Developments Limited
Rouse Kent (Central) Limited
Rouse Kent (1 Tower View)Limited
Kings Hill Property Management Limited
Kings Hill Residential Estate Management Company Limited
L/S One Crescent Drive, LP
L/S One Crescent Drive, LLC
Liberty Property Trust UK Limited
Liberty 600 Industrial, G.P.
Liberty AIPO Limited Partnership
Liberty West Allis, LLC
Perryman 159, LLC
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4030 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in Miami, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 4030 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. FATHER RICHARD MARQUESS-BARRY POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 18640 NW 2nd Avenue in 

5 Miami, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Father Richard Marquess-Barry Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Father Richard Mar11 quess-Barry Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the Matter of: M.R., J.R., P.R., H.R., E.R.

No. COA16-192

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
<PAGE>   1

               EXHIBIT XI -- COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
              FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, 1996 AND 1995
                (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               1997       1996       1995
                                                              -------    -------    -------
<S>                                                           <C>        <C>        <C>
Net earnings................................................  $13,979    $ 9,748    $ 7,590
Less preferred stock dividend...............................        0          0          0
                                                              -------    -------    -------
Net income available for common stockholders................  $13,979    $ 9,748    $ 7,590
                                                              =======    =======    =======
Average common shares outstanding(a)(b).....................   15,230     14,969     14,554
Stock Options(b)............................................      333        510        886
                                                              -------    -------    -------
Average number of common and dilutive shares outstanding....   15,563     15,479     15,440
                                                              =======    =======    =======
Diluted earnings per common share...........................  $   .90    $   .63    $   .49
                                                              -------    -------    -------
Basic earnings per common share.............................  $   .92    $   .65    $   .52
                                                              -------    -------    -------
</TABLE>

---------------
(a) Average common shares outstanding include the reduction of 2,820,850 shares
    of common stock contributed by Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. on June 16, 1994
    for the 1994 period.

(b) Adjusted to reflect the two-for-one stock split effective June 9, 1995.
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                Percentage           State
                                                                                    of           Of Incorporation
           Parent                                  Subsidiary                    Ownership        or Organization
----------------------------                -------------------------           -----------      -----------------

<S>                                         <C>                                      <C>             <C>
PennFed Financial Services, Inc.            Penn Federal Savings Bank                100%            United States
States

PennFed Financial Services, Inc.            PennFed Capital Trust I                  100%            Delaware

Penn Federal Savings Bank                   Penn Savings Insurance Agency            100%            New Jersey

Penn Federal Savings Bank                   Ferry Development Holding Co.            100%            Delaware

</TABLE>

The financial  statements of the Registrant are  consolidated  with those of its
subsidiaries.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION 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 accompanying Annual Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Todd E. Simpson, Vice
President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (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.

March 10, 2004                          /s/ Todd E. Simpson
----------------------                  --------------------------------------
Date                                    Todd E. Simpson
                                        Vice President, Finance and
                                        Administration, Chief Financial Officer,
                                        Secretary and Treasurer
STATE v. Christopher Anthony CLEGG.

No. 101P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Chrstopher Anthony Clegg, Raleigh, for Clegg, Christopher Anthony

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of March 2015 by Defendant for Witness Protection:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Timothy A. Bienek, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Affirmative Insurance Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;   3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;    (b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and    (c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):   (a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and    (b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 14, 2005       /s/ Timothy A. Bienek         Timothy A. Bienek    Executive Vice President    (Principal Executive Officer)
Hardin Gray PASS, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Jerry Raymond BROWN, Jr. and wife Robbin Leigh Jones, Defendants.

No. COA16-300

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 30, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
Order entered December 4 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00517 - CV MALCOLM JOHNSON, Appellant

V. VERONICA POWELL - JOHNSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 255 th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 19 - 12398

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 3, 2020 unopposed motion for extension of time to file his brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 7, 2020.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
COURTNEY NC LLC v. BALDWIN

219P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Monette Baldwin, for Baldwin, Monette.

A. Bartlett White, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Stephanie D'Atri, Attorney at Law, for Courtney NC, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of August 2017 by Defendant for Leave to Supplement Petition for Writ of Supersedeas/Motion to Stay:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Beasley, J. and Morgan, J. recused
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO ARAUJO-FLORES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71186

Agency No. A074-305-403

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.**

Fernando Araujo-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals order affirming the Immigration Judge’s

finding that he was removable as a controlled substances offender. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). We deny the petition for review.

FILED

APR 21 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Araujo-Flores was convicted for violations of California Health & Safety

Code § 11550(a). That statute criminalizes being under the influence of a specified

and finite list of substances (a subset of California’s controlled substances

schedules), which are set out in the disjunctive. A plain reading of the statute

therefore reveals that it “list[s] potential offense elements in the alternative.”

Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2283 (2013); see also Coronado v.

Holder, No. 11-72121, 2014 WL 983621, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2014) (holding a

drug possession statute containing language virtually identical to the drug

intoxication statute at issue here to be divisible). As such, the statute under which

Araujo-Flores was convicted is divisible, and we can therefore apply the modified

categorical approach.1

The judicially noticeable documents that form the record of Araujo-Flores’s

two convictions reflect a plea of guilty to count 1, charge “HS11550(a).” The

charging documents, also judicially noticeable, are single-count complaints

charging Araujo-Flores in count 1 of being “under the influence of a controlled

substance, to wit: methamphetamine, in violation of HEALTH AND SAFETY

1

 For purposes of reaching this conclusion, we grant Araujo-Flores’s motion

to take judicial notice and take notice of the jury verdict forms from People v.

Nguyen. The jury verdict forms do not and cannot change the plain meaning of the

statute.

2
CODE SECTION 11550(a).” Looking at the charging documents in conjunction

with the plea of guilty and the court minutes memorializing the judgment, we are

left with no doubt that Araujo-Flores pled guilty to being under the influence of

methamphetamine. See, e.g., United States v. Valdavinos-Torres, 704 F.3d 679,

687–88 (9th Cir. 2012). Methamphetamine is a substance controlled under the

federal Controlled Substances Act. See 21 C.F.R. § 1308.12(d)(2). Accordingly,

Araujo-Flores’s offense of conviction qualifies as a controlled substances offense

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and is a proper basis for his removal.

PETITION DENIED.

3