alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24 - 10058 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Kyung Heo,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23
- CR
- 212 - 1

**______________________________** Before **Graves, Willett,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kyung Heo 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). Heo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-10058 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024No. 24
- 10058

2 with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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 . Case: 24-10058 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2024
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR REPORT OF PAYMENTS

Division of Federal Employees’, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

OMB No. 1240-0014 

Expires: 11/30/2026 

This report is required by law, (33 U.S.C.901 et seq.). Failure to report can result in termination of authorization to provide 

coverage. Show number of cases and all payments made during the calendar year under the following acts: 

Compensation Act 

Authorization No. of Cases Compensation 

Defense Base Act 

Nonappropriated Fund 

Outer Continental Shelf 

District of Columbia 

Totals

Number Compensated Payments

Enter “None” in spaces where no payment was made

Company Name and Address Seq. No.

 └ ┘

I certify that I am an officer or official of the insurance company or self-insurer named above and am duly authorized to file 

this report, and that I have carefully examined the facts contained herein and they are true to the best of my knowledge. 

Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false statement or conceals a material fact shall be fined not more than 

$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001). 

_______________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 

Signature

Title (Print or Type) Date 

Public Burden Statement 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such 

collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 

minutes/hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is “required to 

obtain or retain benefits” . Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Room S-3229, Washington, DC 20210. Note: Please do not return the completed form to this address.

Form LS-513 (Rev. Nov 2023)

Longshore 

Medical Payments

 ─ Department of Defense 

 ─ Dep't of Homeland Security 

 ─ Department of State 

 ─ General Services Administration 

 ─ US Agency for Int'l Development 

 ─ Other (Please Specify) 

Printed name 

_______________________________________________ ____________________________________________ 

 ─ Other (Please Specify)

Washington, D.C. 20210 

 ┌ ┐
#### BODENHEIMER v. BODENHEIMER

No. 39 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 434.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 30 April, 1973.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Jaclyn, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1995 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000  
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995

<CASH>                                              926  
<SECURITIES>                                      4,904  
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8,462  
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0   
<INVENTORY>                                       6,142  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 22,886  
<PP&E>                                            1,536  
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24,800  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6,152  
<BONDS>                                               0   
<COMMON>                                              0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0   
<PREFERRED>                                       3,369  
<OTHER-SE>                                       13,128  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24,800  
<SALES>                                          15,159 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 15,247 
<CGS>                                            11,301 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,763 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   39 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     144 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         57 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  87 
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0   
<CHANGES>                                             0   
<NET-INCOME>                                         87 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.03 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.03 
                                               


</TABLE>
#### Metodija DIMOVSKI, Valentina Dimovski, and Stefan Dimovski, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Tom RIDGE, Secretary of Homeland Security and John A. Mata, Field Director, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Miami, Florida, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 04-1638.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 4, 2005.

*700Michael E. Piston, Lila Sljivar, Michael E. Piston, Troy, MI, for Petitioners-Appellants.

Michael L. Wicks, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Detroit, MI, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before NORRIS and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; and MILLS, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Court Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners appeal from an Order of the district court dismissing their petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dissolving a temporary stay of removal.

Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing the petition and dissolving the stay of removal.

Because the reasoning which supports the Order has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Order of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Opinion and Order, dated April 13, 2004. We note that the district court’s reasoning is buttressed by an opinion issued by the Supreme Court after the district court’s opinion was filed, *Rumsfeld v. Padilla,*- U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004).
B I L L O F C O S T S

THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

No. 13

- 15

- 00322

- CV

Jack Storm

v.

Ronnie King

(No. 2012CCV

- 60514

- 3 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 3 OF NUECES C OUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FE E

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE
INDIGENT $10.00 $20.00 $100.00 $50.00 $25.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

Balance of costs owing to the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christ i, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DORIAN E. RAMIREZ , CLERK OF THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand
and the Se al of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Thirteenth District of Texas, this October 13, 2015

.

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk
#### LAWS v. PALMER

No. 68 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 510.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 18 June 1969.
#### MAYTON v. HIATT’S USED CARS

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 206.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 May 1980.
#### Gerald JOHANNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon DEMORALES, et al., Defendnats—Appellees.

No. 03-56211.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Gerald Johannes, West Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pro se.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald Johannes appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its order staying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pending the outcome of *James Hydrich, et al., v. Peter Wilson, et al.,*CV-98-7167, a related federal class action, in which he is a class member. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Silberkleit v. Kantrowitz,*713 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir.1983) (noting that orders granting stays are generally not appeal-able final orders unless the order places the party “effectively out of court.”).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 50882 Summary Calendar

United States of America,
Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus
Santiago Lopez

- Chavez,
Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 114

- 1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Santiago Lopez

- Chavez appeals his sentence of 78 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that the recidivism enhancement under 8 U.S .C. § 1326(b) is

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 6, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50882 Document: 00515968447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2021No. 20

- 50882

2 unconstitutional because it allows a sentence above the otherwise applicable statutory maximum based on facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclos ed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Lopez

- Chavez’s argument is foreclosed. The parties are correct that Lopez

- Chavez ’s issue for appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007 )

. Accordingly, the Go vernment’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED , see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 20-50882 Document: 00515968447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2021
DOUGLAS M. WYCKOFF

, Appellant,

v.

MELISSA K. CAVANAUGH F/K/A MELISSA K. WYCKOFF

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3480

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 5, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Kelvin C. Wells , Judge

. Douglas M. Wyckoff, pro se

, Appellant.

James C. Campbell and Clark H. Henderson, of Campbell & Henderson, PLLC, Shalimar , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., ROWE

, and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning a recent tender offer or other possible change in ownership of Cameron International, Inc. (“Cameron”), quoted on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol CMRN. Also, questions have arisen regarding a recent increase in the share price from $.05 to $90 during a period when no material information about the company was made public. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company. 

*Therefore, it is ordered*, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.s.t. November 7, 2005, through 11:59 p.m. e.s.t., on November 21, 2005.                 

By the Commission. 

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-22450 Filed 11-7-05; 11:57 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Document

Exhibit 4.16


DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES
REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


As of February 28, 2022, AAON, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (“AAON”) has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), our Common Stock.


Description of Common Stock


The following description of our Common Stock is a summary based on and qualified by our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of AAON, Inc. (as further amended to date, the “Articles of Incorporation”) and our Bylaws (as amended to date, the “Bylaws”). 


Authorized Capital Shares


Our authorized capital shares consist of 100,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.004 par value per share (“Common Stock”), and 5,000,000 shares of series preferred stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Preferred Stock”). The outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and nonassessable.


Voting Rights


Holders of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters voted on by the stockholders, including the election of directors. Our Common Stock does not have cumulative voting rights.


Dividend Rights


Subject to the rights of holders of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, if any, the holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any, as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends.


Liquidation Rights


Subject to any preferential rights of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock, if any, holders of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets legally available for distribution to our stockholders in the event of dissolution.


Other Rights and Preferences


Our Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or preemptive, conversion or exchange rights.


Listing


The Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the trading symbol “AAON.”
Exhibit 99.2
 
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,as adopted pursuant toSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Irwin Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Gregory F. Ehlinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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, as amended; and

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

 

 

Dated: May 13, 2003
______/s/ Gregory F. Ehlinger__________ 
Gregory F. Ehlinger 
Chief Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00300-CR

Jose Miguel ROMO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 469039

The Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 8, 2015

DISMISSED AS MOOT

Appellant pled nolo contendere to the offense of indecent exposure. After he filed a pro se 

notice of appeal, his counsel timely filed a motion for new trial. In the motion, counsel claimed

appellant did not understand the nature of his plea or its consequences. Accordingly, counsel asked 

the trial court to grant a new trial. On June 1, 2015, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed in this 

court. In that supplemental clerk’s record is an order signed by the trial court granting appellant’s 

motion for new trial. In light of the trial court’s order, we ordered appellant to file a response 

showing cause as to why we should not dismiss the appeal as moot. We advised appellant that if 
04-15-00300-CR

- 2 -

he did not file a timely, satisfactory response, we would dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(f). Appellant did not file a response. 

Pursuant to Rule 21.1, a “new trial” is defined as the rehearing of a criminal action after 

the trial court has, on the defendant’s motion, set aside a finding or verdict of guilt. TEX. R .APP.

P. 21.1(a). The granting of a motion for new trial restores a case to its position before the original 

trial and, therefore, renders any appeal moot. See id. R. 21.9(b). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. Id. R. 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5651 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5651

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2010

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
H. R. 5569 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2010. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. 

(a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 

‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2010’’. 

(b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) 

is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘September 30, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2010’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘$20,775,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$20,725,000,000’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsections 

(a) and (b) shall be considered to have taken effect on May 31, 

2010. 

SEC. 3. BUDGET COMPLIANCE. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.