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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40956 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR JAVIER MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-23-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Oscar Javier Martinez-Martinez (Martinez) appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal entry. Martinez argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level upward adjustment to his sentence for obstruction of justice and denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Martinez contends that the obstruction of justice adjustment was based on facts to which heNo. 04-40956 -2- did not admit, which were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and which were not charged in the indictment. Because Martinez raises these issues for the first time on appeal, we review only for plain error. See United States v.
Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). We may correct forfeited errors only when: (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects the appellant’s substantial rights. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)). During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 (2005), that “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, application of the adjustment for obstruction of justice constitutes error under Booker and that error is now plain in light of Booker . Even if we assume, arguendo, that the district court also committed Booker error by denying a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, Martinez has not met the third prong of the plain error test because he has made no showing that he would have received a lesser sentence had the district court sentenced him under anNo. 04-40956 -3- advisory application of the sentencing guidelines. See United States v. Holmes , 406 F.3d 337, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	IAAFA participates in AFA Air, Space and Cyber Conference
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">IAAFA participates in AFA Air, Space and Cyber Conference</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Vanessa R. Adame</b> <span class="date">/ Published Oct. 12, 2021</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas – A team of instructors and leaders from the Inter-American Air Forces Academy joined hundreds of Airmen and Guardians at the 2021 Air Force Association Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Sept. 20-22.</p>

<p>IAAFA commandant Col. José Jiménez Jr., IAAFA superintendent Chief Master Sgt. Emilio Avila, and five instructors were among the academy members who attended.</p>

<p>The conference brought together defense industry leaders and representatives to discuss challenges facing the aerospace and cyber communities. Participants also had the opportunity to engage in additional sessions including agile combat employment and accelerating innovation.</p>

<p>“Our members’ presence at this conference is part of IAAFA’s strategy to provide continuous professional education and training to our cadre and staff,” Jiménez said. “We are committed to giving our team members every opportunity to grow as instructors, technical experts and leaders.”</p>

<p>Highlights from the conference included presentations by Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., and Chief of Space Operations, Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond. Brown discussed a change of culture necessary to transform the Air Force to meet future demands.</p>

<p>For IAAFA helicopter maintenance instructor and retired Master Sgt. Javier Nagore, who also attended, the message was invigorating.</p>

<p>“It inspired me to maintain my professionalism and make sure what I’m teaching is the best information I can present to my students and meet expectations of the Air Force,” Nagore said.</p>

<p>As the Air Force focuses on modernization to address the renewed great power competition, IAAFA continues building partner capacity to strengthen relationships in line with national strategic objectives.</p>

<p>“Hands down all it does is leave room for growth,” Nagore said. “There is no limit.”</p>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.1

Report of Independent Auditors

Board of Directors
Eagle BancGroup, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of condition of Eagle
BancGroup, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of income cash, and cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity for each of the two years in the period ended December
31, 1996.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Corporation's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
from material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts
and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,
as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We
believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Eagle BancGroup,
Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the consolidated
results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the two years in
the period ended December 31, 1996, in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.


/S/ Ernst & Young LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana
January 17, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, Charles C. Jacobs, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of First McMinnville Corporation;

      2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects,
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

      (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

      (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
      and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
      likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting; and

      5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

May 12, 2006

/s/    Charles C. Jacobs
-------------------------------
Chairman and CEO
## FILED Mar 25, 2021 11:41 AM(ET)
TENNESSEE COURT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CLAIMS
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2160 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:59:05 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2160 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:59:05 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2160 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:59:05 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2160 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/21/19 11:59:05 Page 4 of

4
Order filed June 24, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00644-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-24757

ORDER

Appellant’s brief filed on May 11, 2020, discloses the name of a person who 

was a minor when the underlying suit was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). 

Accordingly, the brief is STRICKEN. 

Appellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 9.9 on or before July 5, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 25, 2019

a0418

Order 

Clerk

April 25, 2019

158229 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158229

COA: 343310

Macomb CC: 1993-001266-FH

DEANGELO TAJUAN JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 18, 2018 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1275

___________

Ernest F. Walters; Chris LeGear; *

Montez D. Shortridge, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Walter Kautzky; Michael Savala; Paul *

Muller; John Mathes; Ronald Welder; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Layne M. Lindebak, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 30, 2003

 Filed: November 3, 2003

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmates Ernest Walters, Chris LeGear, and Montez Shortridge appeal the

district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Upon de novo review, see Andersen v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir. 2003), we

agree with the district court that a prior action in Iowa state court bars this federal
-2-

action under the Iowa doctrine of res judicata. See Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist.

Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (federal court gives state court judgments same

preclusive effect judgment would receive under law of rendering state); Arvenick v.

Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents, 642 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Iowa 2002) (subsequent suit

barred where parties in both actions are the same, where claim in second suit could

have been fully and fairly adjudicated in first action, and where court in first action

rendered final judgment on merits).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                  MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                              461,890
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,486,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (178,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         515,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,464,678
<PP&E>                                            8,572,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (5,599,079)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,614,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,653,752
<BONDS>                                           1,173,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          4,681,697
<OTHER-SE>                                       (2,894,069)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,614,517
<SALES>                                           2,328,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,584,620
<CGS>                                             1,780,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,780,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   70,516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      92,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  92,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         92,293
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.03



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32(a)

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             OF 99 CENTS ONLY STORES


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K/A (the "Report") for the
period ended December 31, 2003 of 99 Cents Only Stores (the "Issuer").

I, David Gold, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that to the best of
my knowledge:

     (i)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated: April 2, 2004



                              /s/  David Gold
                              -----------------
                              Name:  David Gold
                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer




<PAGE>
* The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1994

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Jose Cervantes, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2006 Filed: February 8, 2006

___________ Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jose Cervantes appeals the 120-month c oncurrent prison sentences the district court * imposed after Cervantes pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge and a charge for aiding and abetting drug possession with intent to distribute. Cervantes argues the court erroneously assessed a total of three criminal-history points, thus rendering him ineligible for safety -valve relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.-2- Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court’s calculation was correct. Contrary to Cervant es's argument, the district court properly assessed two criminal-history points becauseit is undisputed a valid warrant for a probation violation existed at the time Cerva ntes committed the crimes in this case. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(m) (defendant who commits instant offense while, e.g., probation violation warrant is outstanding is deemed under a crimin al justice sentence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d)). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         9748149
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 41450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  101051741
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         4232912
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           4090220
<LOANS>                                      126840879
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2618378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               255576761
<DEPOSITS>                                   182852282
<SHORT-TERM>                                  40211302
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            5024365
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       7279925
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               255576761
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2603882
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1816276
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 11476
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               4431634
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1355879
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1799916
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2631718
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    30000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 847226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1156522
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    826522
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                       1600
<LOANS-PAST>                                       360
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  2244
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2618378
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   119000
<RECOVERIES>                                     78000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries**

| **Name of Entity**                       | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **State of Incorporation/Organization** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|
| FiberTower Network  Services Corp.       |       | Delaware   |
| FiberTower Solutions  Corporation        |       | Delaware   |
| ART Licensing  Corporation               |       | Delaware   |
| ART Leasing, Inc.                   |       | Delaware   |
| Teligent Services Acquisition, Inc. |       | Delaware   |

 

----